THE MEANINGS OF LOVE

Katry Rain

THE MEANINGS OF LOVE by Katry Rain

Table of Contents PART I

The Foundations Introduction to Part I Chapter One: Love and Genetics The Lowly Protozoan Lower Animals

The Genetic Blueprint Climbing the Ladder The Urge to Family

The Highest Animals The Selection Process Chapter Two: Love and Sex The Approach

A Lesson in Biology The Genetic Agenda Climax Procreation

The Role of Sublimation

The Extravagant Emotion Chapter Three: Love and Romance The Followers of Romance Falling in Love Jealousy Love in History Heartbreak The Future of Romance

PART II The Obstacles Introduction to Part II

Chapter Four The Idea of Value

Money and Genes

Money and People

Money and Sexual Politics Increasing Ones Value Going Through the Eye of the Needle Short Defense of Money The Best Things in Life Are Free

The Future, With or Without Money Chapter Five: Love and the Law Ideal Forms of Consciousness The Need for Law Whose Rules? Criminology Those Who Differ A Greater Sense of Love

Chapter Six: Love and Madness Looking for Heffalumps What is Madness? Toward a Definition

How Do We Go Mad?

When A Society Goes Mad Being Oneself

Some Anatomical Complications

Chapter Seven: Love and Science An Introduction to Science Why Science?

Science as a System of Thought The Fate of Religious Belief Science as Ideology The Role of Technology Other Considerations Love and Science

Consequences of Technology The Promise of Enlightenment

Chapter Eight: Love and Religion The Foundations of Religion Some Anthropological Considerations Religion as a Conservative Force Gods Incarnations Worship

Religion in the Modern World Loving Thy Neighbor Chapter Nine: Love and Civilization The Birth of Civilization The Function of Civilization Civilization and Spirituality Instinct and Brutality Transcending Civilization Civilization and Love Some Unintended Consequences of Civilization

The Future Introduction to Part III

PART III

Chapter Ten: Love and Altruism Setting the Stage

What is Altruism?

Altruism and Biology

Giving in a Taking World Other Kinds of Love Some Consequences of Altruism Is Love a Sign of Weakness?

Chapter Eleven: Love and the Cosmos Seeking Ultimate Truths Ultimate Reality Practical Reality

The Unified World Human Perfection

The Natural Environment The Majestic Cosmology Chapter Twelve: Love and Morality The Basis for Morals The Moral Society Morality and Love Chapter Thirteen: Love and Eros Romance Revisited The Romantic Mind Eros Unchained Eros and Love

Conventional Morality

Romance in a Loving Context

Chapter Fourteen: Love and the Simple Life Why the Simple Life Animals Some Final Reflections on the Spiritual World Modernization

The Foundation for a Good Life Love and the Simple Life

Bibliographic Notes

PART I Introduction There are many ways of looking at a beautiful stone, not the least

aspects are showcased. The jeweler has a vested interest in the proper presentation of stones, as does the unsophisticated rock hound selling tumbled rocks at the summer fair. Both speak from a certain pride, for both work with the polished stone. They create beauty with the chisel and the plain rocks. tumbler. Habit urges us to accept their presentations. After all, no one likes Are there other ways to see stones, to know them? Maybe

of which is having it presented in a flattering light so that its best

we ought to know them as the geologist does, or the Zen master. Must we alter our vision to see them as they are and not how theyve been presented to us? Maybe we can learn to see them in a natural light spoil beauty; sometimes it even enhances it. So it is with love.

so that even their flaws are revealed. Imperfection doesnt necessarily Much has been said about loveas a source of inspiration, a

bridge between people, an inciter of passion, as a path to the spirit.

But doesnt it seem like were mixing two kinds of love here? One is that old black magic that casts us in its spell: romance. The other is

a broader, somehow more transcendent kind of experience. That is, loving humanity in general. Both we call love, but one seems to be closer to reason we talk about both as if they were the same. biologythe mating ritualand the other to the soul or spirit. But for some If we look more closely, this actually presents us with a problem.

Lets first consider the kind of love we associate with romance. If we always got the partner we wanted, and if that person never hurt us, everything would be fine. Love would be great. But romancelets face itis

involved with pairing off, and theres obviously a selection process going on. In that process, some people are going to be disappointed. And even after the dating ritual has finally been successfully navigated and the prize is won, were still subject to getting hurt. With a divorce rate hovering around get disappointed. This is romance. fifty percent and need we say itadultery even highersomeones going to The problem here, if we can reduce it to its simplest form, is that

when disappointment hits us, as it inevitably does somewhere along the line, we become disillusioned with love. Then, to all the claims that love can bring us together, help us care for one another, even save our environment is love, the song says. Sure.

and draw us closer to our spiritual selves, we cast a jaded eye. All you need This book is an attempt to redeem love, not by applauding it but

simply by separating it from romance so that it might speak for itself. As long as the mating game, alluring as it can sometimes be, is

represented as the repository for the highest human emotion, we have

10

every reason to be disillusioned. But we dont have to be, if we could only see love, like the unpolished stone, as it more nearly is. Our journey will take us into three domains. In Part I well

explore the land of romance and be unabashedly biological in our

focusbecause thats the way it is. Well root around in genetics a little

more than may be comfortable, just to stretch some concepts a little wider so that we can reach an understanding we might not ordinarily have. For those the desire to live, come from the commandment of the genes, the first part offended by the idea that most of our fundamental activities, including even of the book may be tough going. Romance should wear nobler clothes. After all, in the American pantheon it obviously does. But well survive that and move on to the next part. Part II takes us to the heartland of America itself, where well

take a long lookat our society, our institutions, what we think and

believeto see if we find obstacles there to a truer understanding of as a vital and constructive force in the world? Answering it may be

love. Our guiding question will be: What keeps us from knowing love more important than we realize. To be able to love otherswhether we of conflict safely. And navigate it we can, and with a sense of hope and determination.

like them or notmay hold the key for navigating this twenty-first century

paths leading there. Here well consider love in its deeper aspects, rather

Part III is about the actual domain of love. Or more aptly, about the

11

than simply as an involuntary response to an attractive person. Well even consider the proposition that love can change the world. Some might prefer to think in terms of my little corner of it, and thats only natural, but well also look at love in the larger sense as well because of its great power to accomplish seemingly impossible things. Let me add for the skeptic that this may not be as idealistic as it sounds. Im proposing that the opposite us today and hope that our old ways will work. Thats idealism. Realism demands that we look for deeper, more durable solutions. So thats it. Well begin our investigation of love in the body, is idealistic: to be faced with the monumental difficulties we see all around

and later look to more sublime levels. This material body of ours isnt everything, but at least its a starting point. In the end, of course, its not our material understanding that will save us. Well therefore

depart from the microscope and the computer in order to transcend the existence. We are biological beingsone prick of a pin proves itbut

world of materiality and try to discover some of the deeper messages of weve also known from the beginning of time that theres another, more

elusive dimension to life. Its upon this world that our happiness and now may find love.

maybe even our survival depends. And in this province, if were lucky, we

12

CHAPTER ONE Love and Genetics

boy-loves-girl, girl-loves-boy. All the great love stories have this as their theme. Whether were speaking of the immortals canonized in

The first thing that often comes to mind when we speak of love is

literatureRomeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatraor a more mundane duo like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, intimates in the newspapers all take for granted. love story of the twentieth century, theres an obviousness to love that we This inevitable pairing off shows something unmistakably biological

in our definition. The focus for each drama is the strong, almost

magnetic attraction persons of different sexes have for each other. And we say love is blind. It exerts its power with or without our consent, sometimes even against our better judgment. Love, like biology, is a force to contend with. And like all strong forces, it has the power to carry us away.

13

because it doesnt need to. The same biological force that drives it drives us, but in the protozoans case the force causes it to split in two, not to seek another. We call this autogamy. This bifurcating microorganism doesnt fall in love because it fulfills its primary

Consider for a moment the lowly protozoan. It doesnt love

biological function by itself. Since it needs no partner, theres no

need for love to propel it to one. No need for the beautiful eyes or sweet scent of another to stimulate it in preparation for mating. The lowly protozoan does quite well without these mammalian necessities.

uninspiring creature. I sure wouldnt. Whether it feels the same excitation prior to splitting that we do upon encountering someone we consider especially attractive, one can only guess. Mitosis may be the ultimate (gutAnd we, for reasons that will soon become clear to us, call its magical, magnetic attraction love. The Genetic Blueprint

I doubt that many of us would want to trade places with this fairly

wrenching?) climax, but Im sure wed much prefer the intrigues of mating.

become one with them? We say we love them, but why?

What causes us to seek out persons of the opposite sex in order to Lets avoid being coy if we can. The show simply must go on. This

is the fundamental command of Nature. And in order for the species to notice attractive men or women: in a sense, we have to. Its the way is carried by the genes. In the genes is our blueprint for survival

continue, we are imbued with the desire to mate. We dont choose to Nature provides for the continuation of life. This pattern or program and were prodded along according to its agenda, regardless of what we

might think. Societies develop various customs, of course, to regulate the course of this genetic matchmaking, but always according to its demands. societies traditionally scorn deviations from the norm; that is, the Marriage, as the cradle of procreation, then becomes mandatory, and

14

blueprint. In this way, even those who have a lower level of passion or those who wish to channel it in other directions are nevertheless urged by society to stick to the program. In form, at least. In most societies this is how one remains respectable. By carrying out the demands of the genes. There are exceptions, of course. Celibacy, suicide, masochism,

asceticism and other seemingly anti-biological activities can be found in

every society. But these are rare and almost always discouraged. They may which our species is particularly prone to. We often like to see how far we For most of us theres no place like home, it seems.

not reflect loopholes in the program so much as a perennial testing of life can goand just as often retreat to the safety and certainty of the blueprint. We seek out members of the opposite sex because we have to. We

may, of course, resort to members of our own sex or even our own hand but the force that drives us is the same. This is not to say

that all love is biological, but simply to consider the proposition that what we commonly call love is originally inspired by the genetic we do. blueprint. The protozoan doesnt love because it doesnt need to. But

Lower Animals

consciousness, our own and those of the animal world, we may never know. But lets be bold and make some general observations. Weve already discounted protozoan love, I hope not too cavalierly.

Do lower animals love? Until we unravel the mysteries of

These tiny creatures may communicate a wide range of information to one another, but I think we can assume love is absent. Its beyond the genetic program. Does love appear when we step up the ladder? Do the polyps of experience the grand emotion? Watching earthworms mate might make

the sea, the loam-digging earthworms, gregarious ants and solitary beetles one think so. Seeing these sensuous hermaphrodites locked together in an amorous embrace is a fascinating and almost erotic experience. But is it love?

15

perhaps? Or do we give the worm credit for at least approaching a

How do we define love, then? As something more mammalian,

state resembling love? Probably not. We cant say that simply because creatures show some semblance of emotion, they are capable of love. have to stretch our imaginations to the limitand beyond. Yet even if we could muster the courage of such convictions, we would Lets leave the humble hermaphrodite a moment and consider

another specimen of creation, the horseshoe crab. Anyone who has denizens well. Their piggy-back style of mating, lasting not for

prowled eastern seaboard beaches in springtime may know these love-struck minutes but for hourseven daysmakes one wonder if theres not some deeper exchange occurring here. Is it physical attachment alone, or is sandy bottom of a tidewater pool, the tenacious male clinging to her back, is provocative to anyone with the least bit of curiosity. We might imagine...but we have to remember that the primitive, almost there something more? Watching the female scuttling along the shallow,

primeval neurological structure of these comradely creatures limits their range of experience, making the existence of love as we know it wholly unlikely. Theres often something very intense occurring in animal

relationships, for sure. So intense that it sometimes appears to rival even our own exalted emotions. But love fills our heads with ideas of such variety and magnitude that it would be unfair to expect the poor earthworm and

crab, with no cerebrum in which to generate such florid thoughts, to match a loving courtship, but on such a small and alien scale that Im pretty sure that neither you nor I would call it love.

our achievement. They can embrace with seeming passion and even imitate

16

Climbing the Ladder

ideal of love, but do we have the same confidence when speaking of, say, horses? Anyone who has seen horses nuzzling may begin to think them

Its easy enough to say that earthworms and crabs dont share our elaborate

capable of the higher emotions. If affection is there, can love be far away? stallion and mare in heat plainly shows. If Nature here shows her brutality, its a brutality born of necessity, for the species must Affection often ends when mating begins, though, as watching a

continue. The force that drives the stallion to bite his mates neck and drives her to kick him or buck him off in his moment of glory is so love. primitive and voracious that I dont think we would really want to call it Yet animals in heat do often resemble human beings in love: the

single-mindedness of purpose, heightened attention, increased metabolic rate and general excitationsigns shared by many of the higher animals. Were quick to cite differences, though. We feel that among a compassion. As affectionate as horses can be, when we

humans, love has a greater range than simple mating. Theres a tenderness, see the stallion mount the mare and thus witness the creative ferocity of We enter more dangerous territory when we talk about primates.

biology unleashed, were pretty certain that they dont really love at all. If we enjoy walking on thin ice, now is the time! Here speculation ends and a seriousness borne of being too close to home sets in.

The monkey enclosure is often the most popular exhibit at the zoo, theyre not. I dont know of any experience so amusing and yet so have to do with a challenge to our ideas of uniqueness, even

probably because the monkeys appear so human, even though we know troubling as an afternoon spent watching apes and monkeys. It may superiority, and its the humbling nature of such observation that

especially comes into play when considering if these animals can love. Even now primates are being taught sign language, and their

17

teachers are amazed to find them exhibiting characteristics unsettlingly

familiar to us: even such human vices as jealousy, lying or passing the attributes as well?

buck. Would it be so farfetched, then, to think them capable of other human Chimps are lovable, but can they love? We used to dress them up in

clothes and have them perform tricks or have tea parties, but does this

mean they understood the subtleties of those behaviors? Or did it just look that way? Maybe a slight infatuation with ourselves causes us to relish such mimicry in the animal world, but when we train killer whales to leap through hoops or dogs to walk on their hind legs, arent we introducing something foreign? To us this behavior may look familiar enough to lead us to believe that the animal feels what we do, but this may not be so. The conditioning of animal behavior doesnt automatically cause a simultaneous conditioning of feeling. B. F. Skinner provides us with ample evidence for abiding pride in the dog. One might say the pleasure is purely ours! this. We dont automatically impart a sense of accomplishment in the orca or Could there be something a little narcissistic, then, in our attitude? We

enjoy being imitated. We project our own qualities onto animals. Believing that they, even the lovable chimps, are capable of anything approaching love is an idea probably based more on these projections than on reality.

The Highest Animals

some assumptions about the world of animals. Our distance gave us a measure of objectivity. But when we speak of people, our objectivity naturally diminishes. Theres no emotional detachment. If anything, were intensely opinionated, and our opinions come from so many friends, personal observation, religious trainingthat the word

Now the controversy really begins. We felt safe enough in making

conflicting and sometimes biased sourcesbooks, television, family,

18

objectivity probably ought to be stricken from our vocabulary!

and higher animals need to but dont really love in our sense of the word, what are we to think of humans? Thats the question. Our past experience probably inclines us to say that we need to love and that we love in the not too proud to say, viva la difference!

If some one-celled animals dont love because they dont need to

fullest sense. We can love because were different from animals. And, were We learn in various textbooks that one of the things that

distinguishes us from animals is our capacity for language. Its been

said that were the only species that has such a capacity and that this one another through a system of symbols. Its this ability to acquire

shows a higher level of thinkingwe can communicate complex ideas to language which ostensibly sets us apart from the zoological crowd. But hasnt this argument been toppled lately? We know, as I mentioned, that primates can acquire and use complex sign language skills,

and through them can express a range of ideas and emotions until now

considered exclusively human. And of course dolphins and whales have our helpfor eons. Even simpler creatures have a form of language for tell other bees at the hive exactly where it has found a fresh supply of

been communicating complex messages through sound symbolswithout expressing ideas. The honey dance of the bee, for example, allowing it to nectar. The transference of complex information through symbols isnt this convincingly. Pride, possibly, may have caused us to exaggerate

the province of human beings alone. The work of Konrad Lorenz suggests differences in symbol systems in order to prove our superiority. This over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and every living thing that

gives additional credence to the Genesis precept of our having dominion moveth upon the earth. The Koran, too, places human beings, the noblest seem an awful lot like a conspiracy.

creatures, over the rest of creation. From an animals point of view, it must Are we trying too hard to accentuate our differences? Of course

19

we can dwell on our advanced language capacity if its a comfort to us, but isnt it also true that in many ways we arent necessarily superior to animals? Consider the vision of the hawk, the speed of the

cheetah, the strength of the horse, the stealth of the snake, the steadfastness of the badger, the patience of the vulture, the determination of the salmon, dog. In such comparisons, is there really such a gulf as we imagine? virtue, religious people that piety is, wealthy people that wealth is. the industry of the ant. The independence of the cat. Even the loyalty of the Strong people sometimes like to think that strength is the highest

Are we, as a species, succumbing to the same temptation? Humans are the most intelligent species, so intelligence is the greatest virtue. gotten us? But should we care to reflect a moment: where has this intelligence Whether we look for social, religious or neurological factors to

separate ourselves from the animal kingdom, the fact remains that we operate from a genetic blueprint and are obligated in one way or another to follow it, just as animals are. Its fashionable today, of

course, to say that we choose our own destinythat we shape our lives with a purpose of our own selection. Popular existential literature is filled with assorted characters agonizing over their choices, and thematically, theres a common assumption that we are, or maybe can be, free. Fundamentally, though, we have to adhere to the blueprint. Were filled with desires for food, shelter, sleep, sex, worldly success survival. We may be free to some degree to choose how well fulfill

(even if in our own terms)these, of course, are the prerequisites for our biological obligations, but fulfill them we must. If for some reason we lack the proper motivation, society will step in. Law and custom urge us our fundamental needs. Survival is a group effort! appropriately. These failing, social welfare agencies and procurers cater to For the way we act out this blueprint, we proudly point to our

intelligence, far beyond the ken of animals. We can think. We can

have ideas, values, aspirations. We can love. But here do we mistake

20

the difference as being one of kind rather than degree?

the varying levels of complexity among living creatures, but somehow

Students of biology long before Linnaeus have tried to demonstrate

weve managed to make a sharp separation where humanity begins, even while accepting the concept of the differentiation of animals by degree of complexity. Its so clever how weve contrived to place ourselves above the fray. Only in cynicism or resignation do we say were animalsand convention, the activities in a singles barbut our general opinion is usually after reading some unpleasant news or witnessing a fight, a political much higher, much more flattering. Yet given the biological evidence, one wonders if at a fundamental level the differences are as great as we think.

The Urge to Family

marriage itself is the primary institution. This is no coincidence, but the result of a universally-shared need. Cultures conform to basic

Every society has marriage customs and in virtually all societies

biological demands, even though theres much diversity in how this is Topeka and Dar es Salaam, but we do know that in both places they

accomplished. We wouldnt expect to find the same wedding ceremony in celebrate marriage. We can say that diverse peoples consciousness has been fashioned in the same general direction but not in the same form. This is how anthropologists are able to grant that there are certain is different.

human universals while at the same time maintaining that every culture The urge to family is as old as life. Reproduction itself may be

considered the central purpose of life, because without it life would

discontinue and any other purposes we might have ascribed to it would disappear altogether! This is not to say, of course, that little else has meaning, but simply that its upon this biological substructure that

other meanings are placed. There are meanings beyond reproduction,

21

but in the long run, none without it.

of the ongoing discussion about the purpose of life, found not only

Thus the urge to family is the central theme of human life. Much

among those of a philosophical bent but also in the psychological and

religious literature of our time, is slightly wide of the mark. Biology is often taken for granted and the human psyche becomes the focus of attention. Everyone seems to be talking about consciousness, as if it were some

magical realm separate from and superior to the more carnal aspects of our humanity. It seems to me we too often speak as if the mind were a thing apart, that old Cartesian duality that we cant seem to get away from. A might add, and think, too. Again, this is not to minimize the spiritual or cosmological dimension of life, as well see in later chapters, but only later to develop our ideas of more complex things.

more apt dictum might be, We reproduce, therefore I am; to which we

merely to begin looking at the question of life first in its rawest form and Marriage, then, is fundamentally a way of organizing the urge

to family so that its benefits for the community and the species are

maximized. This is an analytical view and may not be too palatable to think its important to recognize very clearly how societies establish their values along lines dictated by the genetic blueprint and not in discussion to more than compensate for this loss. some magical way. Therell be magic enough, I hope, in our later Love propels us to a partner. Most of us marry and the cycle

the many starry-eyed newlyweds marching down the aisle each June, but I

continues. Love motivates us to carry out the plan of life. In its course, but a mechanism nonetheless. The Selection Process

starkest sense its a mechanism, working in our best interests of

and biology a little more clearly, I hope, but how about the results of that

Lets move along. Weve seen the connection between romance

22

connection? What happens to the emotions when the pairing off begins? selection process itself. The broken hearts of adolescence and sometimes To us, nothing seems more cruel about the mating game than the

of later years are a poignant testament to this. Still we call it love. Why does she love him instead of me? To our wounded pride there doesnt seem to be any logic to it, especially when we see ourselves as so much worthier than than our tender psyches can comprehend in those painful moments. the force that propels us to one another. It defies logic, but only the subjective logic of how we would like things to be. We cant make reason why this is so, any more than we can answer the question, the competitor. And after all Ive done for her! But theres a deeper logic Whats so hard for us to understand is the apparent blindness of

ourselves love someone, nor can we make someone love us. We cant What does she see in him? Its nothing she sees. Shes responding

to something unseen. Its an attraction more powerful than our ideas of how things ought to be. Its blindness is really our blindness, because it isnt blind at all. It sees very well what it must do. It must match

people in the best possible combinations for the continuance of life. What These we would much rather have as a matter of personal choice than what we call broken hearts.

we so often disagree with is its choice of the best possible combinations. biological necessity. Its this fundamental conflict that sometimes causes Love involves matching and this presupposes selection. Thats

clear enough. But who is selected, and why? This is more complicated

than it seems. Darwin speculated that, in broad terms, the fittest were

naturally selected; but even after a century and a half of additional thought on the subject we still dont know who the fittest are. Thats because there are actually two selection processes occurring at the same time. Weve

already mentioned the first, which is the unseen attraction that draws people together. But beyond that, we have our own ideas about who is fittest. Yet can be wrong! If we read about the nineteenth- century robber barons, we also have to consider that our ideas can be wrong. Whole societies ideas

23

for example, it seemed to many at the time that their type was the fittest. After all, hadnt they risen to the top? Some of us accept this appraisal even of our own IT robber barons and others like them today. But if we aesthetic, intellectual, creative, as well as physical dimensionsthen a of perfection. Or a Mark Zuckerberg!

look at the total life configuration of a personthe social, ethical, spiritual, Cornelius Vanderbilt or a J.P. Morgan may look a little pale as an example Dylan Thomas wrote that the force that through the green fuse

drives the flower drove him, and of course its the force that drives

all life. Some of us have this power in great quantity, some have less, and

some seem to have very little at all. What determines how fit we are how much power or how we use it? Who will say that Gandhi was less fit than Getty, even though the former great soul died leaving little more than a

rice bowl and a pair of glasses as personal possessions? Yet we dont always the lucky, the clever, the manipulative and the greedy as frequently as the

realize this because society so often errs in its judgment, typically rewarding genuinely strong. And this same judgment neglects many in whom the life force courses most strongly but in unacceptable ways, as in certain artists, gang leaders, sexual adventurers and other deviatesunless they catch the that the rich and famous are the fittest, and indeed many of the rich and famous will do all they can to perpetuate this image. Where is all this leading? Precisely back to our personal stake

publics eye and become its darlings. Its too easy for us to surmise, then,

in the selection process, where the problem is bigger than we may have thought. Again, not only are we faced with sexual selectionthe unconscious mating processbut social selectionwho we THINK is fittest

as well. We dont know why we are PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY

attracted to someone, nor have we precisely determined SOCIALLY who is best. Two blind processes occurring at the same time and were caught in the middle. attracted to someone but are frustrated because theyre married, theyre from So what does this mean in practical terms? Maybe were magnetically

24

a different race or social class, theyre too young or too old, or any number sometimes find the perfect social match but discover the magic missing. Theres not enough of the unseen pull to hold us fast. Thus marrying for as marrying for biologys sake can lead to problems if theres a social but what about the rest of us? societys sake can lead to problems if theres a biological mismatch, just mismatch. Saints may overcome these obstacles (often by not marrying!) This is all part of what we call love. But such love seems

of other social barriers. Or they simply dont love us. On the other hand we

imprudent. It leads us to all manner of imperfect combinations. We suffer jealousy and insecurity. We experience heartbreak. Yet were smitten and incorrigibly follow its call. Just look at us. Our hearts beat rapidly,

our pupils dilate. Our receptor systems become fine-tuned, open to every nuance, every turn of the loved-ones head. We lose our appetites. Sleep doesnt seem so important anymore. Time stands still. Theres no war, no

poverty. No worry about politics or the future. No one in the world appears cold or hungry as we rush headlong into the poetic wilderness. Were wild, were crazy, were ready to destroy anyone who tries to come between us and our loved one. This is love?

25

CHAPTER TWO Love and Sex

The Approach

but somehow weve to find a way to explore the subject of sex without being either unduly prurient or tediously clinical. Too much has been said about exists. If we could reduce sex to its fundamental nature, maybe we could understand it better. Of course to strip away the accumulated beliefs and it already, but in this case too much is not enough, because a confusion still

Theres the greatest chance here of being indelicate, even crude,

folk traditions surrounding it may mean removing much of the mystery, but it might also reveal a deeper mystery. And thats exactly what were after. master Shido Munan once said that there are two paths regarding the body; thinking of it and not thinking of it. Thats simple enough! former path. First, thinking it was a necessary evil, a shameful Lets begin our journey by considering the body itself. The Zen

And unquestionably, wed have to say our culture has led us down the thing to be denied and covered up; then, thinking it was a source of pleasure and pride, to be indulged and displayed. From guilt and repression to hedonistic satisfaction, from periods of denial to bouts of public exhibition and eroticism: weve seen it all. This preoccupation underscores a central fact of our culture: were compelled by our

society to think incessantly about our bodies. This helps to explain why idols. Thinking of the body as we do, and having learned conflicting interpretations of the bodys role in human life, its inevitable that our vision. If modern life has confused us about the world, it has

physicians are among our high priests and why sex symbols are our dream

there should be some misunderstanding. Above all, we have to simplify confused us even more about ourselves. Machines surround us, but

were not machines. The question of what we are, however, remains to

26

be answered. And in later chapters thats just what well try to do. But first, lets continue talking about the body. A Lesson in Biology

deceptively simple and deserves further consideration.

The body is the material source of our being. This statement is Some say that the body houses the spirit, serving as a temporary

resting place for the elusive soul. This body-as-temple concept has although with a twist, in the scientific thinking of recent centuries.

been especially strong in religious thought and has been given new life, That is, spirit was reduced to mind and the body became the house

for the mind. In both cases it seems the same dichotomy can be observed: the mind and body are separate, and we often think of one part struggling against the other. But now were beginning to learn that theres no natural minda chemo-molecular dancehave been so well documented in the

separation. The minds influence on the body and the bodys influence on the last several decades that some people dare suggest, as Arthur Koestler did, thatpsychopharmacology may someday supplant philosophy or religion as the way to orient people to the world. So the claim that the body is a mere housing for the mind may simply be naive. We need to consider, then, that our thoughts dont always emerge

mystically because were somehow conscious of the pure spirit of the universe or because we have an independent intellect capable of spontaneous ideation, but also because the body is a dynamic, living does take two to tango.

entity constantly communicating its needs and wants to the brain. It really We have ideas, for sure, dreams and aesthetic sensibilities, but

these dont stray far from physiology. We admire classical Greek urns but may neglect to note that they were first designed to hold water for

us to drink, and later to hold the ashes of our bodies after cremation. This

suggests that aesthetics is built on concerns related just as much to the body

27

as to the mind. There are diverse examples. Were indebted to architects for designing shelters, for instance. We indulge in dance and athletics to experience the exhilaration of the bodys movement through space. A

painting by Bosch might affect the pit of ones stomach as well as the soul. alpha waves while others go to rock or hip-hop concerts and decamp with stimulated primal rhythms. No experience is purely religious or purely

And some of us attend classical concerts, leaving contentedly with activated

aesthetic. Even the hallucinogenic bodyless trip is stimulated by chemical actions in the body. Both fear and euphoria can be chemically induced. From this perspective, the mind is one with the body.

for ethics? These, too, may have their foundation in the bodys need for unrelated to physiologyastronomy, say, or love of Chinese literature. Yet however indirect, we may find a connectioneven if this means claws. Thus even doing the Sunday crosswords may be related to survival.

What about the higher emotions? The search for truth? The concern

survival. Some highly abstract notions, of course, may seem completely

considering intellectual puzzle-solving as a sharpening of ones mental

the mystery schools werent necessarily incorrect in teaching that theres a spiritual self, but the self as we commonly know it begins with (and for some of us, ends with) the body. Its our connection with the world. What we know of the world, we know by way of the body. Whatever we are, our bodies are a part. To a libertine the body may be everything while to an and ideas concerning the appropriate way to treat it, are central to each the question of existence. ascetic the body may be nearly nothing, but in both cases the body itself, ones being. I think, therefore I am is merely a superficial rendering of Its true that many spiritual disciplines, from our own

The body is the material source of our being. The mystics and

fundamentalism which disdains the body to the teachings of Hinduism of the body in life. They teach us to rise above our material selves;

which consider it part of maya or worldly illusion, minimize the role

28

that this state is desirable. But denial of our biological foundation and

attempts to view a good life as the process of overcoming our material reality are ironically counterproductive because this creates the image of a divided self, half bad and half good, constantly warring against cannot stand. The struggle to conquer the material self creates an the most important spiritual question of our time: what is our place better position to discover what love is. itself. In a phrase Lincoln popularized, a house divided against itself insoluble psychic tensionand does nothing to help us answer possibly in the world? If we could begin to answer this question, wed be in a lot

The Genetic Agenda

intimately connected with deoxyribonucleic acid? It sounds ridiculous but lets not let that hold us back. We know a lot about DNA but apparently not enough to realize its central role in our lives. (The recent research of Dr Peter Hatemi suggests that even political opinions are connected to specific genes!)

Is it offensive to consider that what we think of as love is

the heart and circulatory system. In its tiny bits of material are

Lets look at the body. We find in DNAs package the design for

directions for constructing, from virtually nothing but dividing cells, the human heart. The chambers have been designed, the cellular material selected, venous and arterial connections planned, the neural none of which can be detected in the sperm or ovum.

pathways to the brain provided for, the concept of valves implemented In other words, the heart and circulatory system arent present in

the original cells, simply growing larger as the fetus grows. Only the information is there. Theres no heart in a fertilized egg. One must

be formed. An entire circulatory system must be constructed. Thats a mind-boggling task. But the task is even larger. A lymphatic system

29

has to be built. A skeletal system, complete with joints, lubricating

bursa, red blood cell-producing marrow. A muscular system, connected to the skeletal system in all the right places and perfectly balanced. A digestive system, including gastric acids, enzyme-producing ducts, system. An olfactory system. An auditory system. A visual system. understand it. And a nervous system that is, in spite of all our

mucosa and nutrient-absorbing villi. A respiratory system. A sweat gland A reproductive system thats so complex that were just beginning to research, quite beyond our comprehension. None of this is present in the fertilized egg. Not one muscle, not one bone. Not even a taste bud. Everything is created, developed, with a precision that can only be called miraculous. These great plans, complex beyond belief, are contained in a microscopic pus-drop charged with DNA.

to point us toward romance and its intelligence to know why we must

The power, the intelligence, of DNA is beyond words. Its power

do so may be a miracle much harder for us to accept. This is even truer

today than in the past, barraged as weve been with political concepts of

freedom and existential notions of free agency. We say we have freedom of choice. Yet our heart has no choice but to beat, our lungs but to breathe. If To accomplish that, they must love. the species is to survive, male and female must be attracted to one another. The genes are selfish and arrogant little rascals, so enamored of

their own existence and perpetuation. They have no shame. Nothing is

beneath them when it comes to making us carry out their scheme. Theyll

have us eating locusts, joining gangs, sleeping in doorways anything if it

will help them survive. Remember the Donner party in early California for a lesson in how far theyll go. Look at acts in war to see what theyll make us do to stay alive. We can only follow along, sometimes willingly, sometimes grudgingly, but follow we must. The show must go on. Is this determinism? Are we drawing a fatalistic scenario where

30

people are mere pawns in a game larger than themselves and which they must be resigned to? If were really serious about human freedom, we simply ought to be realistic about the odds. To talk of life as if it

were something composed of ideas alone, or human will, is at best a partial view. We do have freedom, but its always within the context of lifebiologywhich has definite parameters. Will can push us to the

limits, but for most of us, never beyond. This is not a call to limitation, but now were living far below our potential, as Im sure most of us painfully realize. The genetic agenda is clear. Survival is the first (and for the genes

to define the limits so that we might extend ourselves closer to them. Right

the only) consideration. If reproduction provides the means, then we

must reproduce. Weve been given the means and the desire to reproduce, through an ingeniously designed system complementary organs, sensitive nerve endings and stimulating hormones, all working in tandem to transmit continual messages to the brain. Over the years we learn to interpret these messages, through personal experience, the counsel of peersrarely describes, sexually active. Climax

parents!and models in the media. We become, as the contemporary phrase

of the longstanding taboo on the subject or the often impenetrable air of considered a virtue, biology texts give us sex without society and social teachings give us sex without biological understanding. Putting the two together usually takes some independent thought.

The broader role of sexual function is rarely discussed, maybe because

mystery surrounding it. Even today, when frankness or even bluntness is

31

orgasm. It is described as the peak experience. Mens stories and womens magazines extol its virtues. Manuals teach how to achieve it. Sky-diver folklore describes that sport as the second-best feeling there is. Here we have a god of sizable proportions.

The focal point of sexual life (and indeed life itself) for many is

carrying out the genes instructions. Through it we fulfill our

In a way, sense gratification is the reward were given for

responsibility to the genetic program, at least momentarily. The reality

of gratification is that at the moment of complete physical and emotional satisfaction, the process of tension-building begins anew. Yearning soon replaces satisfaction and our responsibility looms before us once reproductive acts, even if not all are fruitful. again. Thus the survival of the species is assured through continuous Orgasm is the prize, but its pleasure is really just an incidental

aspect of a larger process. Its the incentive and we may pursue it

doggedly, but it isnt the raison dtre of sex. Reproduction (and thus survival) is. From this perspective, we might even be thought of as the servants of sexwhich in turn is the servant of the genes.

transform itnever eliminate it!into an energy source for other

Thats an unsettling thought. Maybe were its master only when we

activities. Excessive work, charitable activities, artistic endeavor and

religious passion alike may be propelled by this transformed energy, as Freud so clearly recognized. And while its generally admitted that this remains that some people who are too busy for sex may have simply conception has had to be considerably widened in recent years, the fact conditioned themselves to a different drummer, even though the source of

the music may be the same. Some also prefer the more sustained intellectual or spiritual climaxes to the brief, repetitive, draining ones of the body. But whatever ones personal inclination, the beat definitely goes on.

32

Procreation

desire and the continuation of the species. For us, sex is an instrument

Today we seem to give little thought to the relationship between

of pleasure, often accompanied by schemes to prevent accidents, i.e. attitudes on sex, but even before that there were many forms of

childbirth. The development of Enovidthe Pillin 1954 revolutionized contraception, from harmless incantations and potions to often harmful own, perhaps the greatest triumph of technology of its time. Consider really become so successful in overcoming biologys blueprint?

induced abortions. With the invention of latex the condom came into its the power of a device that thwarts the command of the genes! Have we The continuation of life has always depended on the law of averages.

Theres no perfect couple procreating the perfect offspringfairy-tale

romances notwithstandingbut only a series of approximations which point in history, when large populations are increasing exponentially,

through time and sheer numbers guarantees at least modest success. At this non-participation (through birth control or abstention) may actually serve the genetic game plan by reducing the risk of overpopulation. Was it just overpopulation was being widely recognized? It may be that this latest coincidental that a new means of birth control emerged just as the threat of

33

adaptation is simply one more manifestation of our intimate cooperation with our ruling elite, the genes. Nevertheless, we dont generally think of the long-term survival of

the species when were about to make love. Were typically unaware of the fact that the compelling magnetism of the others body is not ones unique be swept away by passion than to analyze its originsand rightly so. We relish the feeling of it, not its physiological and psychic construction. that were not exactly free agents in this earthly dance. We sometimes romanticize it to the point that we lose sight of the fact Sex is a necessity for procreation. Its built into the organism. personal response but a universally-programmed one. Wed much prefer to

Our self-satisfaction is calculated to keep us interested. We need that satisfaction. This is why we should rightly consider sex a

self-serving activity. We act out sexual scenarios because of profound

and insistent personal needs, both physical and emotional. The battle of the sexes, or even the battle with the self, revolves around the conflict between this fundamental, built-in need for self-satisfaction and the other persons

(or the higher selfs) needs. Thus we can add a variety of interpretations to sexual life but at this most basic level were conditioned to be self-serving. This should give us pause, especially when were talking about love. Intimacy

understood. There are enough dimensions to fill a library and still not do it justice. Its important to identify some key themes, though, so well add a few words to the literature. One of these themes, as weve plan for survival. But theres another fundamental human need associated with sex that we havent looked at yet: intimacy.

We cant reduce sex to a set of procedures and consider it

just noted, is the self-serving nature of sex due to its origins in the genetic

34

sometimes lonely. Whether this is something peculiar to modern lifeas many contemporary writers claimor a condition as old as human life itself, which I suspect it is, the fact remains. So great is this need for sexual activity. for intimacy that it may rival even sense gratification as an incentive What makes people lonely? Weve heard the theories, read the

The need for intimacy stems from the fact that people are

novels, but this is one of those cases where ones own experience may be the best teacher. When is it that we feel lonely? Or for those among us for whom loneliness is a daily burden, can we trace its

source? Loneliness feels like a heart without a home, and I think all of us have known that feeling at one time or another. Homelessness. In the arms of another, maybe we can find a respite, a sense of belonging. stumbled on the cure, although the folk remedies are many: keep busy, take up tennis, do volunteer work, marry, prayall very

While we may suspect the causes of loneliness, we havent yet

sensible, practical solutions that sometimes work but as often as not can leave us with a lingering sense of apartness. Someones loving arms and warm body can afford such a welcome relief that few of us can climax itself, these occasions are all too rare and short-lived to be

resist the temptation of concluding that this at last is a cure. But like depended upon for life-long sustenance. Those of us who do depend on we are on the external prop of someone elses benevolence.

them sooner or later discover what a tenuous position were in, leaning as More will be said about this later, but for now I hope itll be

enough to simply acknowledge that any relief from loneliness thats control us and not vice versa. A sense of freedom and optimism can

connected with the sexual agenda of the genes is ultimately going to only come from the exploration of alternate possibilities. If the reader can hold out until Part III, these possibilities will be given a long and optimistic look.

35

The Role of Sublimation

what goes on when the lights go out, we can assume by what many people say that quite often what occurs is simply sleep. (While its

Not everyone is a devotee of sex. Although we cant be certain

fashionable today to boast about sexual achievement, if only through we probably ought to take these people at their word.)

innuendo, its not considered complimentary to discuss ones lack of it, so If the insistent yearnings of biology arent satisfied through a

steady diet of gratification, we have to look to other activities which can

act as a safety valve to bleed off the excess energy originally destined for

procreation. Name an activity and it has been used in this way, as we noted passion, sports fanaticism, artistic frenzybut it might be said that any activity we engage in is somehow connected to the libido. Again, this is not to resurrect Freuds view of human experience but only to

earlier. We often associate excessive zeal with such sublimation religious

acknowledge the difficulty in distinguishing what is sexual energy and

what isnt. It might be argued that a trip to the supermarket drains off a bit of libidinous energy. Adolescents who find their passions heating toward a kindling point may be urged to take a walk around the block. Athletic forbid sexual indulgence before the big game. Is there a fine line between sensitivities arent yet developed enough to give us an answer. One cant help but wonder, though, if the genes arent always back there, lurking. of energy coiled in the spine like a snake. Through conscious effort this energy is to be directed up the spinal column, from the lower (instinctual) levels to the higher (emotional, intellectual and finally figuratively, it may be helpful in describing the redirecting of

coaches who want their players to be in peak condition have been known to energy and sexual energy, or are they one and the same? It may be that our

What exactly is sublimation? Theres the Kundalini yoga concept

spiritual) ones. Whether one takes this representation literally or only energies. For some this redirection is achieved through daily practice,

36

as in the case of yoga practitioners; for others it may occur more or less

automatically, as in those who are denied satisfactory sexual outlets. In any case, theres a transformation where carnal beings are changed into what we might call more well-rounded ones. A good part of our education is

really just an attempt to develop and refine this process as much as possible. relying more on circumstance than planning. The intense chess player and the compulsive gambler are more likely recipients than creators of their respective roles. The craving we have for outlets results in a

Nevertheless, this sublimation or rechanneling remains largely accidental,

hybrid of forms seemingly so far removed from the libido that we cant activities, adamantly refuse to see it.

see the connection, and in the case of charitable, religious or humanitarian Its long been part of our psychological folk tradition to regard

zealots who rail against the evils of lust as repressing in themselves a raging sexuality and simply directing a great part of this displaced energy toward society. Thus the zealot doth protest too much. The scandals of the televangelists demonstrate this rather clearly.

But were all like this in a way. And by ascribing noble or moral motives to our behavior, we can sometimes effectively cover the traces of any instinctual motives. Unfortunately, this benign charade serves to less human than it should be. And on a large scale the reality of

obscure the whole person and gives us a two-dimensional image which is human nature becomes less understandable. Who we are and what were the lonely man crying in his room as well.

doing here become insoluble problems, not only for the philosopher but for This isnt to say that every act has a selfish motive. This would

lead us to an unwarranted cynicism. But pride has allowed us to deny our we then see as superior and more human. But lets pause a moment. Like the pauper who exchanged roles with the prince, we may have donned aristocratic clothes, but beneath them we find something more modest.

instinctual heritage and create a whole range of higher behavior which

We may dress up in finery but have we lost sight of the more basic person

37

within? Any attempts to humanize the world or discover a truer nature of the person must first answer this question. This isnt to say that sublimation is always a deceptive charade.

On the contrary, its a necessary and desirable part of the flowering of our energies into more sublime activities, wed truly merit the term animals! We are animals, in a biological sense, but with a larger

human life. If we acted only on an instinctual level and never transformed

scope. The mistake is in calling this larger scope human rather than

understanding that human means both the instinctual and the sublime.

Thus if we seek to become more human, this requires not an increase lower and higher selves. The Extravagant Emotion

in sublimation but a deeper understanding of the relationship between our

have. Yet at the same time it can be deeply disturbing. We discover what its like to lose the appetite, have difficulty sleeping, and to live with a head full of daydreams that keeps us from concentrating on little else but the loved one. We can easily get a sense that things are out of control. Jealousy is a prime symptom of this. Jealousy makes us aware of our affections so that the stability of our own emotions will be mercy of something.

Falling in love is one of the most exciting experiences we can

of our precarious position, and goads us into trying to control the object preserved. We become acutely aware of our vulnerability. We are truly at the All roads lead to the double helix, it seems. Watson and Crick

discovered more than a shape; they found a brain of sorts. And

struggle though we might, we find ourselves at the service of its plan be offended at your insensitivity. But its they who are insensitive.

to perpetuate the species. Tell this to moonstruck teenagers and theyll Romance has blinded them, as it seems to have blinded more than a few of

us, to the reality of love. The extraordinary intensity of it has caused them to

38

give it exalted status of almost mythical proportions. Only a

cynic (or a grouch!) would try to reduce it to a biological mandate. Most offended are those in love, no doubt, but maybe we all find it a bit offensive. One neednt rain on this seductive parade if it werent for wrought. But must we give up our dreams? Dreams are what make

the consequencesto be discussed laterour romantic ideas of love have life so rich with wonder and possibility. Yet dreams ought to be based on

ideas bearing worthy fruits, not heartaches. I think wed do better to learn to ever satisfy our omnipresent hunger.

to distinguish between the fruitful and the merely stimulating in life if were

39

CHAPTER THREE Love and Romance

The Followers of Romance

during adolescence, when it spreads like wildfire through the schools and complete with its own code of conduct, liturgical music and sacred

Romance may be the most exciting of all states of mind. Especially

hamburger stands of the land and creates an entire subculture of followers, devotions. The prayers of teens in love are heard on every radio station. But romance is by no means restricted to the young, as we well know. Many a marriage has been rocked by one of the partners falling in love

with someone else, and occasionally even an old campaigner is shocked to find his or her heart suddenly palpitating in the presence of some new and magical person. The coldest winter can surprisingly thaw, and with it our prejudices about love belonging to youth. Romance has a way of making all other experiences seem to be

either extremely intense or mere shadows. Passion for the loved one

may spill over into political causes, friendships, intensified relationships with children, or deeper appreciation of music or the arts; but it can also blunt interest in other things such as work, money, food, even sleep.

world seems more mundane. The shift in priorities frequently happens so

That is, ideas and emotions grow in importance while the material

fast that the person becomes confused and begins to neglect the duties and

routines that are so important for stability. We see this so often in teens that it has become a clich. The lovesick adolescent. Yet enough of us veterans its not simply a part of adolescence but of life itself. of the velvet trenches have likewise been struck to make us understand that Along with this devaluation of the material world, however, we

40

find a preoccupation with the body, its form, its adornmentsas well as that of the loved one. This isnt as paradoxical as it sounds. Hormonal activity, whether testosterone, adrenalin or dopamine, has a way of heightening

normal body activities in order to prepare it for special contingencies. New and intense feelings are stimulated. New ideas leap into consciousness. The body becomes magnified in importance. The curve of her cheek, the broadness of his shoulders, suddenly become major preoccupations. The way she smiles and the twinkle in his eye become so endearing to the

lovers heart. And after its over, dont we wistfully recollect those images? In those empty moments, dont I think of her face, the perfume she wore? Were not so much the creators of romance as its followers. When under its

power, our thoughts are not entirely our own. Reality becomes a mythology a wonderful and a miserable statewonderful because it makes us feel so alive, and miserable because were so completely at its mercy. uncontemplative spell we confuse it with love. Falling in Love

peopled with intensities and shadows unseen by others. Its at the same time

But maybe the most problematic aspect of romance is that under its

its often a bittersweet memory. The ups and downs may be all too

To those of us whom love has ever called upon to be its follower,

fresh in our minds, even now. Our choice of words is revealing. We

fell. From whatever position of uprightness we held, from whatever love.

heights of self-control, self-direction, independence, we fell. We fell in We like to attribute our fate to various spiritual causes, and

indeed our meeting with the loved one seems to have a strong element

of destiny in it, but the process itself has much more fundamental roots.

The role of hormones has already been mentioned. Its no coincidence that adolescence, when hormonal activity makes its pubescent surge and

love first blooms and has its most energizing and debilitating impact during

41

reaches its peak. The word hormone comes from the Greek word horman, meaning to urge on. Teens are certainly urged on. An unseen hand can cause the fifteen-year-old to behave like an animal in heat, a fact to which any parent or teacher will readily attest. We know these irrepressible high spirits are precipitated by chemical action, and by the same token the administration of countervailing drugs can reduce these spirits to a sleepy euphoria.

assessment of human experience! But life is conceivably rather wicked, from an idealistic point of view. Consider the indelicacy of some of our bodily functions, for example. Yet this is part of life. In the world of ideas, life should be a tidier package, but in the world of actuality deny. Hormonal activity, dictated by the genetic plan, assures that there will be both the interest and the energy to carry on the race. the pharmacists shelf can keep us awake and they can put us to

Are we to believe, then, that love is glandular? What a wicked

theres a crudeness that even the aesthete or body-building Adonis cant

Chemicals are crude motivators but they do motivate. Concoctions from sleep. They can make us tell the truth, calm our nerves, increase our concentration, send us reeling into hallucination, or give us a rush that makes us want to go back for more. That were so affected by these Were receptive to chemicals because our bodies function on a

chemicals reveals the basic dependence of the body on chemical activity. chemo-molecular basis. There is life, yes, that non-chemical ether that electro-chemical system.

makes the material flesh come alive, but alive through the agency of an Hormones can and do incite us to fall in love, but thats only the

physiological aspect and just the beginning. From this, insistent messages of this excitation stimulate the mind and cause a change there, too. Its this change, more than all the bodily ones, that gives love its fearful

reputation. If it were just a matter of managing the body, we should all be

more successful and even content with love. But its a mental condition, an

affliction of the control center itself. Here love relentlessly exerts its force

42

the hormonal ragings of the body merely serve to urge us on.

could unravel this web of belief, feeling and myth, what would we

What are the changes in the mind and how do they occur? If we

find? Something too complex to describe, for sure, but lets make an attempt. Well start with a concept that may be helpful in narrowing down the field. What Im thinking of here is cognitive structure, and world in a certain way because of the particular structure or

it simply means the way thinking is organized. That is, we look at the framework that biology and experience have given our consciousness. Every mind has a shape. Some minds are said to have a screw loose rigid that the shape is clearly definable. because of the apparent disconnectedness of their thinking, and some are so Does everyone have a cognitive structure? By all indications,

yes. From the severely retarded to the nuclear physicist, from the infant has a shape, a form of organization. Even in the mental hospital,

who cries for milk to the old woman tending her roses, everyones mind where patients eccentric thinking tests our ability to conceive of such can tell you, even the muttering schizophrenic and the eternally silent autist look at the world in a certain way. Madness itself might simply be a loosening (or tightening) of shape until experience is no longer manageable. Madness becomes the shape.

impossible forms, the minds have shape. As the perceptive psychiatrist

and experience change not only our ideas, but the way we perceive the different, often radically so. Changes can come slowly, when the

Cognitive structure is constantly being shaped and reshaped. Age

world. Our outlook at twenty-one and sixty-one (or even thirty-one!) is daily accumulation of experience gradually alters the way we see things, or they can occur cataclysmically, when tragedy strikes or religious conversion occurs. In any case cognitive structure seems fixed but is actually quite changeable. We tend toward conservatism as

we grow older, of course, but most of us know at least one story of a

mature person going through changes. Frequently its precipitated by

43

an ominous report from the family physician or the death of a spouse, but its not unheard of for someone even in advanced years to change by virtue of falling in love. Most shocking, of course, is when it

happens to someone we had always considered so steady, so dependable, so responsible. How could they? one might ask. But we know the answer to that.

as with sight, unseen vibrations as with touch. Weve given too much credit to the visual in love; that is, the attraction of the way the person looks and actsfar deeper and more basic is the unseen

Attraction is a mysterious thing. It has as much to do with smell

magnetism between two individuals. Just being in the others presence is exciting. This excitation is then enhanced by cues such as physical beauty or even attractive clothes or jewelry, but these arent the main

enticers. How many times have we been in the company of great beauty and felt cold? Supermodels come to mind here. Or in the presence of a person of average looks who was somehow strangely attractive? is secreted. The pupils dilate, the pulse quickens. Neural activity

Attraction triggers a number of physiological responses. Adrenalin

increases and all the senses become heightened. We find ourselves excited. Its like no other feeling and we are inexorably drawn into its golden maw. pleasure drugsare secreted. So much that we can become addicted. So heaven that most of us have ever known. Like the Sirens call, its irresistible. Increased amounts of endorphins the its not hard to see how being with a loved one can be the closest thing to Its inevitable, then, that ones cognitive structurethe shape of

our thinkingwill begin to change to accommodate this new reality.

New thoughts fill our minds and we must work strenuously to organize

them. At first maybe we cant think straight. Were goaded by powerful

chemical changes which alter our whole outlook. We must evaluate how this will affect our lifestyle, the routines of living weve come to depend on. At the same time we begin to plan strategies for being with the loved one, and

soon, strategies for keeping the loved one. We begin to yearn for guarantees.

44

We become anxious about the prospect of having all this raw emotion, this excitation, only to lose the object on which its focused. The lover then becomes powerful, sometimes almost an object of worship. This is the

central theme in any love story where one partner or the other has really

fallen. Our thinking changes drastically and we have to reorganize our

minds to somehow integrate these new thoughts and feelings. The difficulty of accomplishing this is often exemplified by the appearance of symptoms: sleeplessness, daydreaming, emotional oversensitivity and other signs of love. a disrupted life. Our friends and family begin to see the obvious: were in When were in love the mind takes on a different shape (cognitive

structure). It has to in order to reflect the changes. We sometimes have to live normally again. Creatures of habit, we crave stability and are

use every bit of strength we have to reorganize ourselves just so that we can distraught when we find our thoughts running on like a James Joyce

narrative. An entirely new and stable way of thinking has to be built,

thought by thought, around the new circumstances that were suddenly

confronted with. The difficulty of this is intensified by the negotiations we

have to conduct with the lover, since two distinct lives now must somehow be negotiated. The sexual agenda must also be drawn up, often adding

synchronize. Degree of commitment, daily activities, future plansall must confusion if for no other reason than because the constant build-up/release nature of the libido is different in every person. So far from routine are these problems of love that we generally fail to solve them on the first several outings. Few people spend their lives with their first lovers. Ultimately, a new reality emerges. Love changes us.

months, even years of internal struggle. We come out of the fray with

Our consciousness takes a different form, wrought from weeks,

different ideas, different goals. Our sharp opinions can become moderated, our obnoxious habits toned down. We may realize for the first time in our lives that we have something to lose. We become more cautious,

conservative. A new world has been built inside our heads, and that world

45

contains the lover as a central part. Scary stuff!

diffuse. The ear and the cheek may become as diverting for the partner Lovemaking may be as passionate, but at other times the intensity of

Eventually, the intense, almost electric passion begins to become more

as the erogenous areas once were, but in a quieter, more generalized way. excitation may be softer, more manageable. The endorphins diminish and oxytocin, the trust hormone, trickles lazily. Habit sets in, and with it a measure of relaxation. The raging of the gonads is reduced to a general

feeling of well-being. The mate-finding requirement fulfilled, the organism feels completed. Life becomes more satisfying. Other pleasures take on a deeper, more rewarding meaning. Life is sweet. The only thorn in this otherwise rosy picture is the fact that our

new cognitive structureour worlddepends on another person. And And when they go, so goes our happiness, fulfillment, and sweetness. In this familiar scenario, then, what began as a magnetic attraction

people change. Not only change, but they have been known to die, too.

programmed by the genes for the perpetuation of the species becomes

for us a romantic castle within the mind, complete with a prince and a

princess, luxurious tapestries bordering the bed of love, and of course a

slew of dragons threatening the castles security. Hard biological reality is transformed into an elaborate fantasy. This is why love stories often make the best drama. Drama is inherent in love. Love is drama.

concern and affection, trust and confidence. Gallantry. This is indeed humanized air about them. In a way, we use them to give legitimacy to love. Legitimacy and a certain prestige. In other words, if we

Under the aegis of love we can suddenly find ourselves expressing

Camelot. Seemingly unrelated to passion, these qualities have a more

considered love just a phenomenon of sex and mating, think of the drop in status it would take. The things we do for love would suddenly seem selfish, even tawdry. But if we connect nobler qualities to love, we

enhance it, and with it our own self-esteem. When were generous with the loved one, for example, were thought to have a big heart. Love

46

makes us a giving person. But if love were regarded simply as a

sublimated sexual fixation, such generosity becomes a pay-off, a refined Myth-makers that we are, we shy away from this latter view. On the

form of bribery insuring the loved ones continued loyalty and affection. surface it appears too cynical. We cant imagine how a dozen roses or

a carefully-chosen after-shave can have any relation to the self-seeking

genetic agenda, although maybe all of us have at least once given a loved one a gift while hoping to get something in return, even if that something of civilization weve endeavored to disguise our motives, even from was simply continued attention. Whats fascinating is how with the advent ourselves. This isnt to say that our every act is self-servingfar from it we profess to love someone. This seems to go without saying.

but only that we ought to be more conscious of when it is especially when Love gets much of its prestige, then, from the nobility of the

actions it inspires. People have settled down, given up drinking,

become a dutiful parent, fought for honor, learned kindness, become

affectionatein other words, done something decent with their lives. enormous. Aint love grand, the old saying goes. This cultural

When someone says he or she did it all for love, the prestige of love is overlay makes it very difficult to see that au fond, what weve been

calling love all along is primarily a self-serving mechanism and that our behavior, even when seemingly inspired, can actually be seen as a way to be a bit more cautious about calling it love. Love in History preserve the integrity of our new cognitive structure. So maybe we ought to

must have been a peculiar sight, looking deep into some uncomprehending eyes and tenderly stroking a furry brow. Or was it an idealistic female, looking with longing at a handsome brute shaking fruit from a tree? Did the prehistorics really fall in love? We can only guess. It depends

No one knows when romance started. The first ape-like Casanova

47

on how developed their thinking was. Certainly cavemen and women showed all of the physiological signs we know today, but were their brains advanced enough to permit them romantic ideas? Even an ant has a cognitive structure, but none of the complex ideas necessary for it to be considered in love. For love isnt hormonal activity alone but also the ideas it stimulates in the mind. And it isnt just

this either, but the emotions attached to these ideas as well. Chances are necessary to make romance possible. Maybe there was someone in

that early people were in the process of developing the cerebral structure prehistory with an advanced neural anatomy who suddenly discovered

love, but most likely it took tens of thousands of years or more of cerebral development to permit biological impulses to flower into ideas that could be attached to the lovers image. The first records of romance are of ornaments used to enhance that image. found in ancient burial grounds, where we have discovered vast arrays We can surmise that prehistoric lovers had a hard time of it.

There were none of the sophisticated rules of the game that came with civilization. There was no marriage contract to insure fidelity, and of corner. There were rules, surely, just as there are rules in a baboon course there was always someone with a bigger club waiting around the troop or a flock of birds, but these were no doubt erratically enforced, depending more on coercion, caprice or bravado than any coherent system of justice. Before law, possibly before even language, the tender

feelings of love must have been at the mercy of raw physical forces beyond the control of the lovers. When there are no words, there are only actions. We can surmise how many changes those early minds must have gone through.

After all, the development of love in one person didnt guarantee similar

And we can imagine the confusion those changes must have wrought.

48

development in the intended mate. The creature living in a cave who fell of ones exalted feelings and yet to realize that they may be neither much unrequited love in the caves.

in love must have been in a tenuous psychological positionto be aware experienced nor understood by another. There must have been, to be sure, The Confucian sage Mencius said that civilization really started

when societies began to have funerals for their dead. It may be just as true to say that civilization began when people started falling in

love. Both burying the dead and falling in love show the development of ideas. Again, this development was gradual. It wasnt a case of someone saying lets bury George and civilization began. Even after

the advent of funeral ceremonies, there was still much to be considered

uncivilized, as we realize about even our own era. Civilization and savagery arent two separate phenomena but rather integral parts of all human life. Funeral rites and lovesickness are but two idea structures laid upon the

savage mind in an effort to make meaning out of chaos. If Lady Murasaki in The Tale of Genji portrayed love as a sublime emotion back in the eleventh century, this doesnt mean that civilization had arrived but only that one great leap in consciousness from previous eras where, as in the story of small group of courtiers had become more civilized. Even so, this was a David and Bathsheba, love seems more nearly a blunt response to desire. Recorded history doesnt prove when this leap happened, of course, but merely confirms that it did. Lets move ages and continents away and consider Elizabethan

England. English minstrels brought to the masses what was in the early

Japan of Lady Murasaki a privilege of the ladies and gentlemen of the court. If a peasant in the countryside of Kyoto was in love, he probably didnt advertise it. But his counterpart in sixteenth-century England might sing the minstrel. There were love songs before, to be sure, but never had love been

praises of love in a public inn, encouraged by a lute and the sweet voice of a popularized to such an extent. For the first time, love, this highly developed

idea structure found in various isolated individuals, was now woven together

49

from many strands and made public.

mass communications. Two inventions in particular helped to further revolutionize love. One was the motion picture, creating the new

This form of public worship took on new dimensions with the advent of

churches of the twentieth century, and the other was the radio, permitting chips and stereo headphones, we bring these devotions into our own

the new liturgical music to be heard in every home. And now with computer heads, conveniently while jogging or in the privacy of our rooms. We dont question love now because its legitimate. Its broadcast. So the personal rituals associated with private and often unrequited feelings on the prehistoric plains became public and universal. We have all become to hear the chromosomal music that makes us dance this way. initiates. Yet the more sophisticated we become, the less it seems were able What can we glean from this arbitrarily abbreviated history? If nothing

else, that with its broad dispersal and almost universal public acceptance, love may have become more idealized today and harder to recognize for what it is. What began as a result of an unadorned drive guaranteeing species survival became a majestic drama of the mind, with modern billion-dollar industries feeding on it and making sure it continues unabated. To suggest that love might

simply be the artifice of the genes borders on blasphemy. But beyond this affront to human dignity theres definitely hope that we can discover real love and make this world, even the world within our heads, a better place in which to live. Jealousy

as we know it can really be. Through love I may become kind and

Jealousy is an embarrassment because it shows us how selfish love

accommodating, even compassionate, but dont go too near my loved one! things around us, and this includes other peoples feelings. This gives us It was mentioned earlier that love often makes us more sensitive to

the ability to enlarge our scope of interactions, seemingly humanizing us.

50

But if this music soothes the beast in us, it can also enrage it. If the focal focus. If our thoughts have the lover as a central part, our sensitivity to others ends when they pose a threat to this thought structure. Thus the This is never clearer than when we observe the frequency of

point of our emotions is the lover, then without the lover theres a loss of

protective attitude we take toward our loved one is really self-protective. dislikeor even hatefor ex-lovers. Is love no more than this?

Jealousy is the great unmasker of love. Its the animal rearing up

within us just as we thought wed become so humanized. Jealousy is really a survival instinct. Well struggle for a loved one, just as well struggle for food or shelter. In the plan for species survival encoded in the genes, all are crucial components. We may cloak the heart in

loving kindness, rapturous song lyrics or appreciation of golden sunsets,

but jealousy can topple these niceties like a house of cards. If there was a more nearly disclaim our cruder animal natures. But this would subvert

way to love, like Don Quixote did, pure and chaste from afar, we could the biological matching process and lead to some frustrated Dulcineas as

well, male and female alike. No, the quixotic dream is reserved for a few,

while most of us plunge headlong into the mating game, driven by primeval biology are driven by social customs incessantly coupling us. Life is almost chain of sublimations that conceals the truer nature of our love. Jealousy is rage, after all, and a most uncivilized emotion. It shows a possessiveness thats at once selfish and territorial. Even in the timid person who, when the perfect scheme. Jealousy, then, is the weak link in our decorative

urges we dare not resist. And even those of us less susceptible to the calls of

losing a lover to another, shows none of the classic signs of jealousy, theres often a turning inward of the rage to produce, in textbook psychoanalytic fashion, bitterness and depression. Who knows how many silent souls

among us feel this way? Its harder to detect than the traditional throwing of the frying pan or the sound slap to the face, but may be there nevertheless. Jealousy, like all good actors, wears many guises.

What jealousy tells us, then, is that love may not be the exalted emotion

51

we had once thought. Something more fundamental is at work here; were back again to Watson and Crick and the double helix. And its a reality were going to have to face. The survival game can be ruthless, and jealousy brings out the ruthlessness. If we want to claim that were much more than animals, maybe wed better look elsewhere for evidence. Heartbreak

cant count the number of times weve been moved by a love tragedy

It seems like heartbreak is the pet theme of love. Most of us probably

at the movies or even a tune on the iPod. Others heartbreak is our own as well, so deep are we in the throes of this collective experience. We could then have to say the same thing about being hungry or having stepped in something unpleasant. Heartbreak is a universal experience. even say that to have ones heart broken is to be human, but of course wed

but to what? In a word: loss. We can lose someone at any time and often theres nothing we can do about it. But before we can lose someone, we have to win them. First things first. In the game of life we all have certain attributes, certain

What does this tell us about ourselves? That were vulnerable, of course,

accompaniments, that we use to make our way. One aspect of

this way is, of course, finding a partner, and its here that we bring

all our powers into playwit, beauty, athletic or intellectual prowess, like cologne, a ring, a breath mint. Dating may be fun, it may be

impressive plans for the future, often topped off with finishing touches mirthful, but in the end its deadly serious. Were in the arena to win. suffer losses before emerging triumphant. Here heartbreak has two them at all. No one can say which is more painful. But our We quickly find that the competition is fierce. Even winners

sharp edges: winning someone and then losing them, and not winning vulnerability is clear. Since were compelled to win (or at least try)

52

both by biology and by society, were also liable to lose. No one likes to lose. No one can really afford to. But we seldom encounter a personman or womanwho has won every round. Because selection is the motif, loss is built into the system. Heartbreak. This is what the poets have lamented ever since the heart found words to express itself. But we find ourselves in the awkward position of having an animals

It might have been easier for us had we remained simple creatures.

anatomy and a sophisticated cerebrum which allows us the luxury of ideas. Animals dont seem to take their losses in the arena so seriously. The defeated ram, after having fought a head-jarring battle with an opponent, loss often makes us feel humiliation, a rather curious emotion when you

ambles off to munch on some scrub grass. We dont acquiesce so easily. Our think about it. Instead of pragmatically moving on to the next prospect, we

brood, we weep, we kick tin canssometimes we nurse these humiliations

for a lifetime. The most experienced or the least sensitive among us are able, finally, to accept fate, but I suspect that somewhere deep within many of us, theres a little voice crying. What makes heartbreak so difficult to bear while animals saunter

away from their encounters with little more than matted fur or ruffled

feathers? Our problemand what makes us human, some sayis the We cant simply shrug off rejection like our more primitive

neocortex, that excitable cerebral suggestion box where our ideas are found. counterparts. We take it personally. We may have created an entire world away from. Losing a lover is like temporarily losing ones legs or eyes.

around the loved one, a world within our minds that we cant easily walk Were not like the lame gull or the half-blind coyote, contentedly going

about our business as if nothing had happened. Our disabilities force us to reconstruct our entire lives. Heartbreak is just another disability; a mental have to learn to un-think. one. New reasons to live haveto be invented. Because we can think, we also This is the legacy of the higher brain functions. Like the animals,

53

were in the arena, but we alone seem to reflect about it.

writing in a diary or rededicating ourselves to our work. Some of us

How do we deal with heartbreak? Some of us do it quietly, by

do it loudly, becoming critics or even criminals. In Japan theyve been

known to jump off buildings or throw themselves in front of trains. And yet we continue to call the parent of this wicked child love. I wonder how long it will be before we recognize this dark side of the drama of romance as the unpleasant aspect of the sexual selection processand

stop maligning love by insisting that romance has anything to do with it? The Future of Romance

precarious reign (precarious only because we sometimes dare question its wisdom) will nevertheless last well beyond our approval or criticism. If a bleak picture has been painted here of this enigmatic monarch, it wasnt look. Romance has a positive side. Yes, I do mean that. I havent given arid computer age we live in has compelled so many of us to become

Romance has a future and were all in it. You and I both. Its

to vilify it but to simply stare it in the face for a while. You know, get a good it equal time because too often this is the only side we want to see. The romantics that I really think sentimentality is one of the major themes of romance can do for us.

the twenty-first century. But lets look, maybe a little too quickly, at what Emotional sensitivity has already been mentioned. Falling in love

has the almost magical power of making us able to be more sensitive

to the feelings and needs of those around us. I dont think it would be

too farfetched to say that life in a competitive society has made us more

closed, and anything that can increase our sensitivity has to be considered a on separating us from one another and from Nature itself, we desperately need to maintain our receptivity to one another. The dulling effect of modernity needs an antidote, and few things are more effective than

blessing. At a time when the demands of industry and technology seem bent

54

romance in reopening the channels of experience and allowing us to feel deeply again. We also have to credit romance with being a great motivator. We do

things for love that we wouldnt do under any other circumstances. Well walk the extra mile, work the extra hour, sacrifice what we

might never before have given up. An aging Mark Twain returned to the lecture circuit with a fierce intensity usually seen in younger men and if we can believe the literary grapevine, he did it for his wife.

Romance has a way of bringing out strengths and qualities we didnt

know we had. Romance can move us to do good, often more than all the it because we want to.

theological inducements and philosophical rationales can ever do. We do We cant ignore the social control function of romance. Many a

wild hillbilly boy has been transformed into a hard-working family man, and the same thing can happen to the brash sons and daughters of bankers and senators. Coupling itself controls the behavior of the partners: the mans behavior is typically circumscribed by the

moderating influence of the woman, while the woman historically has which has certainly changed but not as much as we might think. And

been influenced by her economic and safety dependence on the man romance adds another dimension to this structural control. Suddenly we standards that will appeal to the other person. While wildness may be part of the early stages of romance, in the long run we find ourselves wanting

find ourselves wanting to control ourselves. We want to conform to certain

to settle down. A society without such a controlling mechanism might be

too wild to live in. So while we may consider life primitive, even in the soautomatically in this way.

called civilized societies, we must marvel at how it controls itself seemingly Another valuable function of romance is to help bridge the gap

between the sexes. The psychologies of male and female can be so vastly different that some way is needed to connect them. Imagine a

55

hermaphroditic society where one didnt need the opposite sex for

fulfillment. How curiously we might look at the other sex, robbed of our incentive to understand it. If there is misunderstanding between the sexes, how else but through mutual need is there to be the effort

to communicate? Perhaps we need stars in our eyes to achieve the better.

impossible: to know each other, and to use that knowledge to get along Romance not only attaches us to a partner of the opposite sex,

but to relatives and friends as well. As the saying goes, we dont marry is in decline and marriage itself is increasingly unstable,

a person, we marry a family. And even though some feel that the family remains that when we become involved with another person, we

enter a new world of relationships. Because of social customs going back

millennia, these relationships are rather more binding than the ones we form on our own. And they pull us, more deeply and more fully, into the human family. We may sometimes rebel against these ties when they become suffocating, as we can read in Faulkner and a dozen other modern writers, forms making these relationships possible.

but nevertheless we do need each other. Romance helps to create the social We cant separate this need for each other from our need for a

friend. Some of us are fortunate enough to have a partner to whom we can tell all. This need for closeness, for confidence, is one of the deepest in the human psyche. Even at its best, life can sometimes make us feel isolated. We long for someone who understands us. If romance brings us together with another person and gives us an opportunity for such intimacy and understanding, then we ought not to denigrate it but take full

56

advantage of it. Its really a gift.

is at stake, so we must be given strong motivation for contributing. If survival were strictly voluntary, depending only on peoples good

Finally, we need a mechanism for the continuation of life. Survival

will and sense of civic duty, humanity would have perished long ago!

Romance is the built-in survival mechanism, insuring that well mate and

raise children. Perhaps this alone overrides all other considerations. Whether Were unique among members of the animal kingdom in that were

we carry out this mandate with joy or with reluctance depends entirely on us. trying to transcend our animal natures. But maybe we shouldnt get too

57

carried away. Our task, if we could look at the panorama of history selves and our higher selves. That in itself is both a biological

from an eternal mountaintop, might be seen as integrating our animal process and a spiritual journey. We need romance to fulfill the call it love.

biological aspect. Its a necessary and vitally enriching part. But lets not

58

59

Introduction In the first three chapters we considered that there can be confusion

PART II

between romance and love. Much of what we call love may simply be our reaction to the genetic blueprint for survival. If we expect it in for major disappointment. Its only when we explore other to bail us out of the difficulties of the twenty-first century, were meanings of love that we can expect to use loves power to guide us to a more satisfying and secure future. Theres an old Arabian story of a man who fell into a drunken

sleep. His friend, worrying that he might need some money when he

awoke, hid a small jewel in the sleeping mans coat. The man awoke, and hungry.

unaware of what his friend had done, and thereafter wandered penniless One wonders if were not a lot like that man. In a sense we have

a precious jewel within us, but as long as we remain unaware of it, jewel but about the hunger.

we cant overcome our own hunger. Part II of this book is not about the The reader is urged to have courage and a sense of forbearance

in reading on. Were going to enter the realm of social ideas, and well take some risks in doing so. Icons may fall. Were going to

consider the proposition that if an idea has a hold on us, its better to face it squarely, even give it a kick or two, than to stand by while it leads us to an

60

uncertain future. Some of those kicks may well hurt the reader in a tender spot, and the writer asks for understanding in advance. Were well aware of the magnitude of the issues confronting us in

todays world. Its tough going. Were tempted to become philosophical:

life is darned hard. But what good is philosophy if it makes us unhappy?

Instead we ought to hold our heads high, even as we enter difficult places. If we must examine our difficulties, its only to discover other, more fulfilling paths to take. Part I, then, considered the foundations of our view of love, and

Part II will consider whats keeping us from widening our understanding. Do our great and venerable institutions make it easier or more difficult warned that a dim view will be taken of some of civilizations greatest most offended. Well be like hockey players crashing the Ice Capades, truth. Were looking for enough truth to warrant considering some for us to love? Here there will be no sacred cows, and the reader is duly accomplishments. Those who consider themselves most civilized may be with no intention of altering our style of play. But were after some kind of ideas that may lead us to a new and more positive course of action. By later, with hopeful and courageous hearts, what could be.

conducting such a search, maybe we can get a better flavor for what is, and

61

CHAPTER FOUR Love and Money

The Idea of Value

to answer, but in fact its not. And in tackling it well get a better a deeper understanding of love.

What do we consider valuable? It sounds like an easy question

idea of what money is, what it does for us, and its effect on our quest for Who knows who laid down the first coin? Anthropologists tell us that

primitive societies, ancient and contemporary, bartered for goods. We know

62

that stage doesnt last. Somewhere along the line currency is introduced and the entire world of values is transformed. Mathematics enters the scene and soon everything has a numerical value. This is worth three, this seven, this four hundred. Now virtually anything can be bought or sold; everything is The primitive who makes his living trading vegetables for other

evaluated in relation to everything else. Now thats a conceptual revolution! goods knows the value of things. He knows the relationship between or quality of his melons or even his mood, but over the years

melons and jute, for example. It may fluctuate, depending on the size he develops an instinct that provides him with keen judgment. He must have good judgment to survive. But if the vegetable grower suddenly

takes a fancy to a jute traders hand-wrought chair, how many must bargain. The jute trader must assign a value to the chair,

melons is it worth? Theres no ready-made relationship, so the two based on what he thinks its worth and what it means to him. If it gives him much pleasure, maybe he wouldnt trade it for an entire garden of expand his business. In any case, each individuals personal sense of that has been assigned them by the people closest to them. vegetables. On the other hand, maybe he sees this as an opportunity to judgment is paramount. Value is a fluid, personal thing. Objects have value Lets introduce money into this trade relationship. Soon the jute

has a cash value, as do the vegetables. The chair, too, can be assigned a certain monetary value. Theres less subjective bargaining now. A

technical innovation has rendered trade more efficient, less prone to error.

63

Some things are worth more than the jute trader thought they were

and some things are worth less. A Great Judgment has taken place and

now he himself doesnt judge so much as conform to judgment. Certainly

he can produce additional chairs and try to sell them for any price he pleases but unless his prices meet the going rate, who will buy them? Thus arises one of the most profound of philosophical issues, nestled so snugly in the personal value judgments. march of economic progress that were apt to ignore it: the diminishing of The fact that everything has a number attached to it and that

numbers represent value doesnt seem strange at all to us and yet to primitive peoples today it appears very strange. It means that somebody out there has assigned a value to absolutely everything

around us. This wine glass, this watch, that plant, this one-day ski lift ticket, that bookcase, those yachts. Some things may even have two

values: the value theyve been assigned and their value to us.

eared volume of Maupassant isnt worth much on the open market but I

wouldnt part with it, for example. But there are really few things with such

64

double value because there are just too many objects in our worldthe can atrophy through disuse, unlike that of the primitive trader who value. How many times have we heard someone say, Thats

tendency is to rely on cash value as the yardstick. Our sense of judgment exercises his every day. We depend on the cost of something to decide its a beautiful such-and-such; how much was it? Did you hear that

a Matisse just sold for six million? or Did she get a good job? How patients that he raised his fees so as to discourage newcomers. He

much does she make? Theres the story about the doctor who had so many complained that his policy had precisely the opposite effect. Why?

judgments for us shows our tendency to believe in systems. Relying to think independently, thus making us need them all the more. As a

The ease with which we allow the marketplace to make value

on such prefigured ways of thinking can result in reducing our incentive consequence of our reliance on a cash-value system, we inherit a world

where values, for the most part, have already been decided. We save a few personal items from the fray, like the Maupassant volume, a special chair or a stray cat, and by these private acts maintain our sense of prerogative. million and one objects surrounding us, every one with a price tag.

But they are mostly symbolic, and only a small cry in the dark against the Something more to consider is that cash values are influenced by

cultural peculiarities which may have nothing to do with ones personal

values at all. Lets look at an example that was once (and perhaps still is)

65

an issue for many people. Im thinking of mink farms. One may object to them because of their cruelty but lets face it, the fur coat is a fait accompli of our culture. It has been difficult, if not impossible, to

convince some people not to desire mink coats when their value is so

high. Especially on moral grounds, because we can be especially suspicious of moralityit often seems to attack everything currently considered to be of high value. There are pressures in all cultures to conform to social

valuesholding mink fur in esteem is but one examplereinforced by a overawe usif were aware of it at all. Who, then, cares to re-evaluate who has time?

cash system putting everything into its apparent place, which can effectively everything in personal terms? And, wemight add, who dares? Moreover, We typically learn to consider valuable what our culture considers

valuable, a point upon which anthropologists universally agree. And were cultures, composed as they are of the flowerings and sublimations of the genetic drivecan sometimes lead us astray.

there a perfect culture, this might be a benign, even desirable goal. But all

Money and Genes

their guidance, who knows what indolence wed fall into? The fact that

We have to give our genes credit for keeping us alive. Without

66

were here at all bespeaks their vigilance, even as we blithely ignore

their presence in every cell of our body. Staying alive is our fundamental

purpose, martyrs notwithstanding. For without life, we have to admit that all other purposes are rendered meaningless. All philosophy, humor, pathos everything evolves from life. Even supposing that life is just a way station on the greater spiritual journey, this vale of tears (and countless

joys) is central even to that notion, because its from here that we speculate about (or aspire to) there.

strength of a growing plant can break concrete. Those of us who are parents know the energy of a growing child! Life in every form is moving, developing, expanding, utilizing its power most when its

Life is never static. It seeks to grow, to extend itself. The

growing. Even political and religious movements are at their strongest when theyre expanding. It seems to be our genetic inheritance, then, to extend ourselves outward in any way possible, since its by doing so that were strongest and can maximize our chances for survival.

In one sense, Hamlets soliloquy represents a reflection on just this. To

be or not to be. To stay alive; to fully realize our power. Whether we call this inner push survival instinct, libido, will to power, ambition, or any

67

of the other labels that have been attached to it, we can see it in action every day. Society itself exists to govern these outward extensions of human will. All our institutions channel the genetic impulse into profitable or at least manageable activities. If the genes run wild, no one is safe. Money, representing not only values but the power to acquire

valuable things, plays a prominent role in the genetic plan. More perfectly into the natural program of life because of its survival-

money means greater extension. The pursuit of wealth seems to fit enhancing characteristics. Desire for money, like any other passion, can addition, wealth brings with it an incread selection of mating partners

embody a force so powerful that personal extension is almost assured. In

and a strong physical support system for offspring, thus reinforcing ones seem central to the genetic plan.

contribution to species survival. So the pursuit of wealth and wealth itself Because of this promise of such extension, virtually everyone seeks

money. We might be tempted to say that the penchant for money is

innate because of the genetic command to stay alive at any cost. Money helps to pay the costso one certainly cant be criticized for desiring it. Yet this inclination is often so unsettling as to make people restless.

This restlessness has drawn the attention of philosophers and soul-seekers throughout the ages. The fifteenth-century Christian scholar Thomas Kempis said that when a man desires anything so much, he is at once

disquiet in himself. (This is the central tenet of Buddhism as well.) By all

68

accounts, Kempis words must be considered an apt description of humanity todaydisquiet! So even though money takes on a near- magical quality because of its seeming ability to secure survival, theres no release from the restlessness. So disappointing can money be because of its inability to buy paths instead. For money may buy survival buthere comes that vexing truismnot happiness. For that we have to look elsewhere. peace of mind that many have demurred and sought spiritual or intellectual

Money and People

surprising that this evaluation would extend to people as well. Not money, of course, people were judged to have varying degrees of

Money is so pervasive in its evaluation of things that its not so

only objects, but human beings, have worth. Even before the advent of importance. But when cash came of age, suddenly exactness was the

thing; mathematics made more precise definition of a person possible.

but its too deeply embedded in our minds and culture to simply dismiss on philosophical grounds. From the man who is worth a fortune and the woman with the million-dollar legs to the person who asks for a raise because hes worth itwere all implicated in a vast web of numerical someones monetary status? Money is impressive, and without it one

The idea that people are worth money is distasteful to most of us,

judgment. How many conversations can we recall where the subject was may even be treated as having little value, as any welfare family, starving

69

musician or unemployed auto worker well knows. And one may begin to true.

feel a lack of worth. At the other end of the scale the opposite is sometimes Often no one seems to be more confident in his or her self-estimation than

the wealthy individual. And among the rich themselves, theres sometimes School, for example, one is informally classified by peers as living either north of Sunset or south of Sunset, Sunset being the boulevard that

contention about who is worth more. Among students at Beverly Hills High

separates the merely rich neighborhoods on the south side from the megarich ones on the north. I kid you not. One cant help but feel that this is a bitwhatunseemly? Or maybe just plain ridiculous. Money cant buy class, as we well know. But money speaks of

success, and in America we probably admire success even more than class. If a young president of a multi-million dollar computer company is rude, wears old sneakers and loves chili dogs and beer from the can, so what? Hes unquestionably afforded more respect than the history teacher who

listens to Verdi. It seems we sometimes cant help but judge people by using money as a criterion. To many of us it seems natural. Yet money doesnt reveal the soul; it shrouds it behind a material assessment of human worth. Because of this the genes are satisfied, so to speak, but the heart

isnt. In the poor, feelings of low self-worth may nag the soul at every point of contact with society. In the rich, feelings of uncertainty about others

70

motivesdo they like me or do they like my moneymay plague every

kind or respectful act they receive. And in the restless middle class, visions of more money, power and autonomy can make a very disquieting pillow indeed. Heres the irony: money increases our chances for survival but seems to undermine the quality of that survival. Money and Sexual Politics

to portray the life force in action, thus serving as a signpost for sexual attraction. Theres a division of labor among the sexes,

Money has always symbolized worldly success. As such, it seems

however. It appears that in men, money increases ones sexual value, and in women, sexual value increases ones access to money. If this isnt already too obvious, lets consider it further.

wouldnt look at him. We can all think of examples. I can report the

A man with money can often entice attractive women who otherwise

case of a dorky high school friend whose sexual activity increased tenfold the summer he bought a new Corvetteand it just as suddenly subsided so easily star struck, of course, nor is every affluent man a when the car was repossessed by the dealer in September. Not all women are chick-magnet. But dollar bills are peacock feathers that men inevitably

parade before women, and the potent combination of biology and cultural of both sexes.

conditioning can have a mesmerizing effect on even the most discriminating

71

their access to money. Its no secret that men are attracted to feminine curves will place a young woman squarely in the action while her plainer counterpart must study and work hard in order to open

Women in this equation discover that their attractiveness increases

charms, many think overly so. The result is that a pretty face and ample

similar avenues for herself. This inequitable circumstance seems at times cruelly unfair because it gives some women advantage over others in unfair than requiring men to have money in order to adequately securing a partner and the good things in life. Of course its no more fulfill their own imperative. Indeed much of the cruelty of life is

just such reaction to the blindness of the genes in pursuing their goals. But theyre not blind at all. The little rascals know very well what they want! And where are we but right there, riding shotgun. Money, then, plays a prominent role in the sexual selection

process, perhaps a larger role than we care to admit. We like to spare human of us we might find the connection. Were all possessors of genetic and

relationships from the crassness of economics, but even in the most innocent monetary currency, which we invariably spend in the marketplace. This is the burden that the genes have placed on us, and its one with which we ultimately have to cope. Money and romance, walking hand in hand! Increasing Ones Value

A hundred years ago a pound of uranium or a seven-foot basketball player

So many values are relative, and change as culture changes.

72

would have been of little value, but today theyre highly esteemed. And just as values can change, so can ones own value rise and fall. Life demands extension, so its natural for people to want to improve

themselves and their position in society. They seek to raise their

value. Money is a prime means of achieving this, and the fruits of

moneygreat home, fab clothes, classy car, increased independence are the marks of success in our society. They appear to reflect strength and accomplishment. One look can tell us that that person has made it! Look at how hes extended himselfhigh position, wide social contacts, increased travel, second or third homes and so on. From a biological point

of view, he seems to have fulfilled his destiny well. One can hardly help but alike. Our newspapers and magazines are filled with their stories.

admire this, judging by the attention paid to such people, male and female There are some complications in this dreamy scenario we may well be

aware of. Im thinking in particular of the modern tendency to package oneself. As we try to make ourselves into better packages in order to

improve our marketability, we may inevitably lose something of ourselves. The essential self can become progressively hidden under layers of sophistication, savoir faire and other salable elements, not to mention

73

consumer accessories, that make up the new public self. It may not be

an extension or improvement of the true self so much as an adopted face

thats more in line with what society wants from us. This new polished

stone may be far from the diamond in the rough that characterizes our inner life. The tension inherent in this artificial division of the self is one reason upwardly mobile people often cant relax. On the other hand, some of us

may have so profoundly absorbed the package weve presented to the world that we actually become this self and lose the simple essence of our youth. publisher on his deathbed calls out the word Rosebud, the name on his childhood sled. If this message is lost on us, is it possible that we risk finding ourselves liable to utter a similar lonely cry? Lonely because no one can love an adopted self, no matter how successful it is? I wouldnt want to be the me no one knows and Im pretty sure you wouldnt, either. very thought of making ourselves better carries the implication that One may recall the film classic, Citizen Kane, where the forlorn newspaper

In attempting to package ourselves, yet another difficulty arises. The

maybe were not good enough as we are. Its true that in our competitive our proud flags unfurled can lurk an uncomely fearthat possibly were

society we may need to be forever aggrandizing ourselves but beneath all a bit inadequate. We may feel that unless we improve upon Nature, were

74

somehow unworthy. We must continue struggling to be somebody. Does

this mean that now, were not yet somebody but rather waiting in some social purgatory for our miraculous ascension? I hope its not stretching the point suggest this. Somehow I dont think it is. And though I find this less than were up against if were to find a way home.

pleasant to contemplate, as might you, I think its important to consider what An additional liability of personal packaging is its fragility. If

society bestows respectability or importance on us, cant it just as easily

withdraw it? Observe anyone who was at the top and later hits bottom

if you doubt this. Even friends can disappear. Thus those who have laid

up their treasures on earth may be in a precarious position. The humbling

forces of the world can strike quicklyillness or loss of job, for example and many a proud person has bitten the dust. We need not be pessimistic to acknowledge the truth in this. In fact, the knowledge that theres a way out And thats what we need more than ever now. Because as the mind can imagine, so goes human destiny. Plants constantly extend themselves but theyre hardly beset

of this unholy bear-pitexcuse my Frenchis really grounds for optimism.

with self-reproach about once having been small. They dont try to

conceal their humble beginnings but dig their roots into the soil from

where they came, where they draw their nourishment. Their flowers may be pretty packages aimed at pleasing the bees, but those flowers have a direct beauty. connection to the roots, indeed depend on the roots for their existence, their

75

The Camel Going Through the Eye of the Needle

of riches? What happens to the soul on the road to wealth? Its true that money changes people, but we seldom know why. Maybe we fails us. Those of us who have soared to the heights or observed

How can we explain this Biblical injunction warning of the danger

stand in awe of Fates power to shine so brightly on some of us that reason someone who has know how little time there is to consider what

may be happening to that sacred temple within, now grown quiet in the face of the overpowering glamour of success. The woeful tales of rock starsamong othersepitomize this. But the heights alone

dont monopolize this experience. Just the common act of finding

moneyfive or ten dollars will sufficeeven this is able to suffuse

some of us with awe. The power of money on consciousness is awesome. savage picked up a seashell or stone and reckoned, hey, this might be of a physical world, were materialists. Sense perception is our truth. Our tte--tte with money is nothing new. Ever since the first

worth something, weve been attracted to the magic of money. As creatures

76

But somewhere deep in the recesses of this material body we get a hint

of an experience of a different sort. A different dimension to reality. We times that we get a sense that theres a spiritual side to existence.

can sometimes feel it. We may even hear it speak to us. Its during these Which speaks louder, money or the soul? We need only look

around us for the answer. Money talks, while the soul speaks in silent

murmurings that often go unheard. Were trained, and by example train The material world is so glaringly obvious that our attention is more easily fixed on it. Matters of the soul are obscure, more difficult to

our children, to listen to the practical nature of what money has to say.

penetrate. This is why we call some paths of religious pursuit spiritual

disciplines. We have to discipline ourselves in order to screen out the noise of the material world so that we might become more aware of the sounds of the soul. Each step toward wealth can intensify the calls and demands of the material world, train the eye to increasingly focus on material rewards as they becomes more a part of our lives. The road to riches is thus able to for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

desensitize us to the subtle cries of the inner life. So its said that it is easier

77

A Short Defense of Money travel abroad, they sometimes do seem so. Wealth itself isnt the culprit standing in the way of spiritual developmentit acts only as a The poor arent necessarily more spiritual, although when you

temptation, a diversion. Since we can never get enough, we place ourselves in a training of the worst sort when we chase the elusive material dream.

We cant live on philosophy alone; one has to eat. Prayer may help, but even the rabbi must work. We have to earn our place in life. Money in this sense is merely a convenient mechanism for achieving this. Theres an old Oriental story in which the spirit of the gold a

However, we do need money, or some such negotiable currency.

rich man had accumulated visits him in the middle of the night, not to haunt him but to give him guidance. The spirit warns him that since oldest times an age of extravagance has never survivedso he is well advised to practice

78

frugality. Extravagance weakens the inner life, hes told, while more

discipline in keeping money in its place strengthens it. The moral: money should be a means to life and never a way of life. This was the spirits counsel.

Sometimes poverty focuses so much attention on moneyother peoples arent the determining factors in finding inner peace. Our relationship to them is.

The poor arent faultless, of course, nor is poverty necessarily praiseworthy.

moneythat its just another form of materialism. Wealth or poverty, then,

The Best Things in Life Are Free

be disappointed? We live in a peculiar age where our profoundest truths are sometimes considered little more than ingenuous adages to good things being free strikes us as naive and idealistic. Were teach to children. Like honesty being the best policy, the idea of certain that any realistic appraisal of life as it is will show these

How many times have we sought the truth of this maxim, only to

sayings for what they are: insipid little proverbs, unheeded by the

79

sophisticated and bound to lead the naive to disillusionment.

free? Even intangibles like education or art have a price tag attached. The very idea of liberating things from this web of material values spun around us is a revolutionary concept. But before society can be freed from its overwhelming dependence on materialism, the mind itself has to be freed.

If everything has a value assigned to it, how can anything be

from an early age. Our belief in angels, magic, and invisible the impervious logic emanating from our school books. Our

Were trained to view the world in the grossest material terms

friends is chided out of us as we grow older, slowly replaced by perceptions are coached to recognize material things, to give credence only to what we can see and touch. Seeing is believing is the motto of this faithless age.

and its role in this. The nervous system is a delicate mechanism and so fond of stimulation that it easily forms dependence. Pet a dog or give a young child candy and notice how neither will leave you alone! Having been excited, the nerves seem discontent to return to a normal state. We know that drug addicts dont like to come down. South

In addition, we have to consider the bodys own physiology

80

Asians, accustomed to food spiced with curry or chili, find European food highly stimulated in the urban environment, often find it difficult to spend these really complaints of an excited nervous

too bland. Is there a pattern here? City people, whose nervous systems are any length of time in the country. If its too quiet or too boring, arent

system suddenly exposed to a lower level of excitation? Is this

why most Western readers are indifferent to Japanese literature with its

subtle emotions and lack of action? Steeped as we are in the dynamism of leave us cold. And has poetry declined because were such an uncultured stimulation of amplified music and hyperkinetic television programs and

Shakespeare, Hemingway, even Stephen Kingthe quietude of the East can generation or because our nerves have been exposed to the higher level of films? When once poetry inflamed the heart or caused the spirit to soar, to

many of us today it often seems only a benign handful of speculative words be unmoved. If theyve even heard of it.

on a page. Now a whole generation can read Hopkins The Windhover and The nervous system responds quickly to stimulation and once

stimulated, fails to appreciate lesser levels. We learn to feel the crudest

of vibrations while more subtle ones are passed over unnoticed. Maybe

81

this is why we seek out the solitude of a church or temple when we find ourselves in need of soul- searching. And those who pursue the soul in earnest withdraw to wooded monasteries or mountain retreats far from

the confound- ing noises of civilization. In these places they attempt to

retrain their nervous systems so that subtle perceptions can once more be be restored to sensitivity.

experienced. In time and with discipline, even the most rattled ganglia may Lets return to our saying about the best things in life being free.

The modern mind, perhaps jaded by the intense stimulation of

contemporary life, can easily dismiss this bit of folk philosophy.

Our perceptions, dulled by high levels of excitation, naturally revolve around material things. Things which stimulate us. And material things cost money. The best things cost the most money. This is the

logic of our materiality, and only by overcoming this one-sided view can we hope to develop a deeper appreciation of whats valuable in lifeto become aware of the subtler truths, to really see the best things.

82

The Future, With or Without Money

have and seem to have survived. The woman known as the Peace

Few of us are in a position to give up money, although a handful

Pilgrim spread her message across the United States for three decades

without a penny in her pocket. But exceptional cases aside, money, the

grand arbiter of modern experience, appears to be with us to stay. And by all indications it will continue to dictate value. If this state of affairs is unlikely to change soon, maybe we ourselves have to change.

going to give up romance. Both are oft-requested tunes in the repertoire of the genes and well no doubt dance to them for a long time to come. What

No one is simply going to give up money. We might as well say were

we can consider, though, is the intimacy weve developed with money as a

definer of valueand how we might go about freeing ourselves. One might look first at ones own values. How much are they dependent on the gross that might alter our perceptions of value? Theres a whole new world out vibrations of modern society? How receptive are we to the subtle essences there beyond numbers, beyond romancebut it has to be experienced to be believed. As yet there doesnt exactly seem to be a legion of believers. But for those willing to undertake the journey, the rewards are there. When the spirit of the gold we have accumulated visits us in the

middle of the night, I hope we can give a good accounting of ourselves. I hope we can stand up and dance with him, and be merry from the bottom of our hearts. Merry because his message is how one might reconcile the spiritual with the materialand its in this magical realm of the two coming together where the true joy of life resides.

83

84

85

CHAPTER FIVE Love and the Law

Ideal Forms of Consciousness

or hinders us in our pilgrimage to a deeper understanding of love. In considering law, we first have to realize that a certain ideal is visualized. Its important for us to know what this ideal is and how its projected in our society. Then well be in a better position to understand its effect.

Well turn now to the law, as our search continues for what helps

person. In those quiet moments when we drift into a daydream, he or she may appear like a shining spirit, embodying every human virtue.

Well start with the individual. Somewhere out there is our ideal

He may be the perfect man seen by Michelangelo as he cut his David which is a kind of rib. Were all gods when we dream.

from a rock, the perfect woman created by Botticelli with a mere brush, When we imagine beauty we see more than just good looks. We

see an inner life thats pure and serene. We have nothing to fear from our beautiful images; they mean us only good will. Gaze at David or Venus to see that their souls are as pure as their bodies. To our relief, theres nothing Picassoesque about their consciousness as its revealed to

us by their harmonious features. Theres no lasciviousness or eccentricity hiding behind their porcelain brows. We sense only innocence and

86

balance. If only real men and women could be like this, one might say.

us to invent mythical beings or worship two-dimensional celebrities? Is the world so disagreeable that we have to people our minds with more perfect images? Yet animals, at least as we understand them, dont do this. A cat is quite content to stretch out in a sunny spot or take a playful romp in the grass without concocting visions of the perfect cat. Maybe this is

Why do we have ideals? Whats wrong with reality that compels

why animals dont have literature. Reality itself is descriptive enough. And dont withdraw but remain intensely involved. We find no insanity among

even when reality is bad, as it just as often is for animals as for people, they animals. Certainly we can artificially create neurosis through our laboratory experiments, but theres none of the human-like psychosis developing from the widening gulf between ideals and reality. Animals have no ideals, so

they dont go crazy when the real world doesnt live up to their expectations. There are no expectations. There is simple conditioning, of course, where the dog barks for its food or horse struggles with rider in order to run back

to the barn, but this is a far cry from human experience where, for example, get into Wellesley.

a high school senior jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge because she couldnt All such concepts originate in the neocortex, perched on top of our

animal brain. This estimable gray matter is, as weve said, where our ideas are born. Its here where we begin to compare the world with a world of our own making. This is where we find the birth of Venus.

Yet its one of the paradoxes of life that at the moment we grasp beauty,

were made more painfully aware of the less than beautiful in life. Could it be that our sense of beauty is in fact a rebellion against the imperfections of the world? Is it the contrast we see? after all, there's no splendor without vulgarity,

87

88

just as there can be no light without darkness, no warmth without coldness. Is the value of beauty in its opposition to things not beautiful? Is it this principal of the contrast of opposites that makes us inclined to dream, to search for perfection? Maybe if we encourage perfection in people, they'll act better. Let's give them incentives or, if these fail, punishments to encourage them. Perhaps in this way people can become more beautiful. Could this be one of the prime movers behind the genesis of law? The Need for Law share of mistakes. Were not perfect. We go to excesses; we become We just want to be human. And in our humanness we make our

offensive; we sometimes hurt one another. Somewhere, it seems, we have to draw the line: for ourselves, and for those who cannot or will not. Maybe were too recently out of the jungle and its still in our racial memoryif we can believe Jungand we dont want to go back.

head, as it will every time we speak of expressing ourselves. We live in society. We can forgive the wild boy of Aveyron for his indiscretions because he grew up outside the sphere of human relations; we cant forgive our neighbors children for acting that way! The expectations are simply different.

The tension between the individual and society again rears its

is necessary. In the absence of lawas in the early American frontier era or during wartimepeople must carry guns to protect themselves. Even in an affluent society like our own, we have to ride corporations, on teenagers in our junior and senior high schools. We

If civilization is truly only a thin veneer, as we often say, then law

herd on denizens of hot urban neighborhoods, on bankers and unscrupulous even have to fight corruption in government, where our laws are made and

administered. It gives one a funny feeling. Civilization at its best can seem

89

to be a delicate balance between security and the jungle. Order doesnt come naturally but has to be struggled for daily. There are several billion genetic codes out there, and each one impels its carrier (you and I) to survive and to extend itself. The genes are no respecters of laws. They have no eyes;

they are blind to all the practical considerations of living together with other carriers. They care only to be handed along to another healthy body so that when you and I grow old and pass away, they will continue contentedly in our offspring. This genetic competition is the basis for the jungle. It is the

jungle. Animals with no higher brains and accompanying thought processes are still in the jungle. They live simply by the genes

command. Mere instinct controls their behavior. But human beings can the genes, as it were, by compelling them to do their work in socially (and ourselves as their agents) achieve their goals by means of these standards.

exercisethrough ideas, through willa measure of control. We restrain appropriate ways. We create behavior standards and then we make the genes

remain like animals. Law is simply the codification of these standards. Law is, then, a preventative. But more than that, it envisions a better person. If theres a law against murder, this encompasses a vision

Without this idea structure imposed on the genetic impulse, we

90

of a human being who doesnt kill. If there are laws against industrial despoiling their environment. That we so often fail to live up to these

pollution, this indicates a conception of people able to make a living without standards means that for self-serving reasons we sometimes go beyond the law. People cant control themselves, it seems. The call of the genes is too follow and come down hard on us when we dont follow them. strong. There must be an external structure to provide us with examples to In a perfect world we wouldnt need police. How many times

have we opened up the newspaper and read about people who played nature, we might ask. Were tempted to call for even more laws and people dont seem to be willing to play by the rules. We have to be tough. As any schoolteacher can tell you, a laissez-faire policy just doesnt work. We cant run a society as if it were Summerhill, the

fast and loose with the law? What does this do to ones faith in human stricter enforcement. After all, in a competitive society like ours, many

permissive English boarding school. The diversity of ideas is too great and the pull of the genes too strong. All these diverse minds need a framework in which to operate.

or narrowed by our interface with the law. Lets not draw any conclusions impetuously. But if our line of discussion in the forthcoming pages should prove to show a narrowing, we have to consider what effect this larger view.

What Id like to consider, though, is if our minds are being widened

might have on our willingness to accept romance because love requires a

91

Those Who Differ

many cattle in rural Kenya and the laid-back throw some shrimp on the barbie (BBQ) Aussie to the energetic and upwardly mobile American. But heres the an even more fundamental question might be: why must one form prevail at all?

Every society seems to have its ideal type, from the man with

question: which form of consciousness ought to prevail in a society? Yet

thinking but that of the mainstream? Some say we cant solve this problem we can never fully accept others who are too different. Arthur Koestler, we simply dont have the capacity to enlarge our scope to

Is it that people in a given culture are unable to trust any type of

the desire for a narrow rather than expansive form of consciousnessand that for example, wrote that at our present level of neurological development,

92

encompass all people in our sacred vision.

consciousness, one that tends to look at people in terms of us and them. This could very well be the legacy of the genetic command

In any case we may be under pressure for a kind of standardized

for our own survivalour system of laws and beliefs simply reinforces it. Thus we may be encouraged both by our biological heritage and our cultural conditioning to look at people in a certain way and exclude entirely our own. those who dont fit the pattern. In a sense, then, our minds may not be If consciousness is organized so that nearly everyone in a

society shares at least a core constellation of similar concepts and values,

there may be sanctions against those who dont. Certain bad types can be from the norm, were likely to say. But its when we meet someone whos really different that we realize how straight a path we walk. Those who dare to be free usually pay a price. First, of course, the family exerts

identified, representing those who stray too far from the norm. We all differ

pressure on the errant heart. Then the school. If things progress too far, even the clergy or the police become involved. And psychiatrists too, who today as from coaxing the truly unique back into the fold by teaching a technical repertoire of adaptation skills. We often earn their reputations not so much from ministering to schizophrenics

93

face the combined resources of an entire society when we begin to follow hold out over the long run bears the scars from this lifelong encounter. Theres a peculiar irony in the fact that those who are able to

a different drummer, and we can surmise that anyone who has managed to

fight the tide without drowning are accorded a kind of folk-hero status. toe the line. Today film and rock stars and artists, especially, fall into this category. Singular styles of dress and behavior are not only

They are then permitted their eccentricities while others must continue to

tolerated but regarded as a trademark, while the remaining plebeians are

allowed no such freedom. We need only apply for a job or show up at our in-laws house looking and acting like the quintessential rock star to feel the force of social reaction against us. If were just an actor between acts

of a play or a party-goer on Halloween, thats fine. But if our novel persona

reflects our actual consciousness, were on a collision course with reality.

philosopher of the human condition, were likely to hit the wall so hard that

Like Quentin Crisp, Londons first public transvestite and later recluse

only an iron will and great courage permit us to continue. Thats what it took for him. One might ask the question: why does it take courage to be oneself? That would be too conspiratorial a view. In democratic societies, at least, law merely reflects the general opinion of society, although Its not that law aims to deny us the right to express ourselves.

sometimes one step above in order to encourage better behavior

than people might exhibit if left to their own devices. So maybe we

94

shouldnt look for a repressive legal system so much as a partnership between law and opinion to maintain a general force of law is unnecessary. uniformity of behavior. When public censure is effective, the Those who differ too much arent considered merely eccentrics

but bona fide criminals. Whats a criminal? This question is

complicated by the fact that different societies have different and

sometimes contradicting criteria. In the former Soviet Union the buying and selling of blue jeans was a crime, while in America its almost a sacred ritual. Until recently, homicide was not only acceptable in parts of Melanesia, but a cause of masculine pride. Yet with the introduction of Western law, those who continued this practice were considered criminals. a beer. Those of us looking for universals of behavior by which to judge what is normal are bound to be frustrated.

In the hot wastes of Saudi Arabia you can be severely punished for sipping

But its often difficult to separate the true teachings of the prophets from

We sometimes appeal to religion in order to arrive at a standard of judgment.

the religious dogma that has sprung up in the cultureso for all practical purposes we may still be appealing to public opinion. So whether society is judging the criminal whos intolerable or the eccentric who is merely unusual, we ourselves are typically part of the judgment. And if were

encouraged not to accept different forms of consciousness in others, neither will we be free ourselves to think independentlyand to consider if there is something about our socially prescribed way that is preventing us from

95

loving. Well be forever stuck with romance.

Criminology, the Study of Divergent Consciousness

Its hard to love a criminal. In fact, it may be difficult to love

pervasive and runs so deep that we can suppose that its a survival

anyone whos too different. This feature of human experience is so

mechanism. If were able to quickly identify those of like mind and this is so, we may have gone too far in establishing whos like us

those who are outsiders, certainly this enhances our security. But if and whos different. Weve extended the principle far beyond survival so that it includes comfort as well. Weve surrounded ourselves with like minds (neighborhood, club, nation, etc.) and it may be difficult feel uneasy.

to distinguish between whos actually threatening and who merely makes us Identifying those who are different has taken on an added dimension in

the modern world because deviance has become a problem to be attacked

96

scientifically. Lie detectors, psychological tests, credentialingthese may

in fact be bloodhounds sniffing the trail for those who differ. With the potent combination of science and fear of difference, one might well be concerned that we could be on the way to creating a society where no one seems the least bit different from anyone else. Pass me my coat and hat, if you unmistakable.

please! The reader will forgive me if I use hyperbole here, but the signs are The psychological burden that this places on the artist and the

ethnicwho might be said to be inherently differentand the closet witch or poet who simply want to explore some of the varieties of human experiencemay itself be a crime, but one against which theres

no law. To heed Polonius words, To thine own self be true, could actually mean walking into the sharp gears of an ever more finely-tuned machine. This seems an incredible statement to make about America in particular,

since we pride ourselves on our independence. But we ought to ask those who dared what price they had to pay. Lets ask a Brando or, better yet, lets ask the oddball down the street. The cost may be too

high for most of us. I had a friend at university who refused to drive a car on environmental grounds. You have no idea what flak he took for that. To yield to homogenization, sameness, is the path of least resistance, and although one doesnt like to say so, what a well-worn path it is. Criminology, then, with the force of societys ideal type behind

it, is the philosophy of defining and enforcing normality, reinforced by claims of protecting society from threat. Maybe we fail to realize that the criminal mind, bent on destruction, and the straight

97

mind, cherishing stability, are not independent of each other but are simply shades of the same spectrum. The criminal mind, e.g. Frankenstein, is capable of acts of kindness and the straight mind,

e.g. Hamlet, is capable of violence and madness. When circumstances call for it, almost any mind can change, as we well know. This is no doubt unsettling. It seems to encourage the search for, with every scientific tool at our disposal, a theory of the criminal mind: why

people stray from the norm. If we can get a foot in this door, we can

hope to someday standardize all thinking. Thats a prospect few of us Its quite true, as the reader is aware, that there are threats to

would relish but it does seem at times to be in the process of unfolding. society. There are crazies all around us, as even the effusive social some is patently pathological. Its upon this latter fact that society

worker must admit. That is, while some behavior is simply deviant, builds its case. There are villains out there, possibly irredeemable ones at that. Therefore the thrust of criminology isnt rehabilitation as much as devising more effective ways of catching and incarcerating malefactors.

shows its basic orientation. Its clearly a vindictive theology. Retribution most moral among us. Why do we not think this ironic?

Historically, the laws ultimate solution to social threat, the death penalty,

the wrath of God, not his loveproceeds from the lips of many of even the The problem appears to be compound. First, there may be little

clear-cut distinction between the normal mind and the criminal mind, so society cant adequately discriminate between the two. The good are family man on a rampage) while the less than good enjoy every often treated as criminals (Socrates, Sitting Bull, the freedom riders, the

98

immunity (Hernando Corts, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J. Edgar Hoover,

voracious [but cool] Internet barons). And on an everyday level, no one knows the private suffering of those who are made to doubt their own goodness. In a practical sense, this may be where the larger tragedy lies. Second, law enforcement in its present form may actually have a

search and destroy mission, in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. sanctioned by the ruling elite (as in a totalitarian state) or by the

Its intolerance of deviance denies legitimacy to any behavior not majority (as in a democracy). Heretics of every sort throughout history

have been hounded as criminals. Their only possible salvation, if they were fortunate, was to recantlike Galileo, who must have lived out his life may find ourselves recanting simply to find or keep employment. thereafter with many long and troubled nights. Today we who are different No one denies the existence of criminals. There are destructive minds

everywhere. Were often not safe to walk the streets anymore and this The pressure for us to strike back can work to narrow our minds even

hurts us all. But that makes our task all the greaterand more crucial. morecreating yet more people on the outside (them as opposed to understanding love.

us) and denying us the vision to see this as an insurmountable obstacle to How are we to solve the problem of crime? Exceptions aside, we

have to realize that it is and always has been fundamentally a problem of outsiders. Insiders simply have too much to lose. Thus we have to bring

99

more people inside. If were willing to lovebut not an ever-

increasing number of themthen our cause is lost. And by outsider we dont always have to mean the misfits out on the streets, as outsiders can also be executives in the boardrooms or philosophers in the universities who may display all the outward signs of conformity while their souls languish. Not everyone beyond the pale is so obvious.

A Greater Sense of Love

about who we extend it to. By loving only those who are like us, we wrong not only the outsiders, but ourselves as wellwe maintain this world of us and them where security depends on social censure and the police. confronted with the strange or the bizarre, as I said before, has some The natural prejudice that springs up in the breast when were

If were to practice genuine charity, we have to be less discriminating

basis in biology. That is, in our desire to protect ourselves, our families

and our way of life from external threat, we may be quick to judge those who dont fit into an accustomed pattern. This has probably saved many a Neanderthal from harm and no doubt was incorporated into society as it

developed over the ages. So self-preservationthe selfishness of the genes

100

to protect their carrier so that they may be passed on to the next carriercan lead to selfish actions on the part of the carrier. In the jungle this may be humankind away from the jungle? permissible, but isnt civilization considered to be the process of weaning If our minds are made narrower by law, by society, we may never

be able to see the subtle connections binding us together. Well

always be encouraged to look for differences. The future is only as good even endurable) only if we can summon the vision and the courage to make it so.

as the breadth of our consciousness will permitand can be fulfilling (or

brains. We need only look at the history of art, of invention, to see this on our imperfections, might we focus on the strengths we do possess? and faithto accommodate increasing numbers of people in this

The opinion of skeptics notwithstanding, we have highly-developed

clearly. Lets not blame neurology for our problems. Rather than dwell Our minds are developed enough to permit us, through will and imagination sacred dance of life. Perhaps only in such a milieu is greater love, love

encompassing us all, able to come forth. Then we might be able to achieve, as a society willingly because we recognize our underlying similarity and

in the phrase of Emile Durkheim, organic solidarity, where we fit together

101

interdependencerather than the increasing mechanical solidarity of today, where we feel separated from one another, and all the disparate elements are held together by the force of law.

togetherness or at least a deeper sense of belonging, is it any wonder we flock to romance?

Lacking satisfyingly close ties to one another and hungering for

102

CHAPTER SIX Love and Madness Looking for Heffalumps

and society we were offered a decidedly narrow agenda, a world of us and them where romance can flourish but love may not. Now well

In the last chapter we considered the possibility that through law

consider them even more by entering the realm of madness. Here our really put to the test. Shall we have a little fun first? Lets begin with a clever story from A.A. Milne.

capacity to enlarge our understanding of usthe province of loveis

the time he and Piglet planned to catch a Heffalump. After all,

One of the more delightful adventures of Winnie the Pooh concerns

Christopher Robin said he had seen one recently, although it hadnt

seen him. So the two intrepid souls set about digging a pit and placing

a jar of honey at the bottom of it. The unsuspecting Heffalump would fall into the pit while trying to get the honey. Not knowing what a Heffalump was, they were eager to come back the next day and see. Pooh neglected to notice that he had used his last jar of honey in

this enterprise, so when he woke up hungry early the next morning and crept to the cupboard for his favorite food, there was nothing. He

simply had to have a little taste, so he returned to the pit and climbed in

103

himself. When he put his head into the jar to have a few licks, he became stuck. Piglet also awoke early but had second thoughts about the plan.

Frankly, Heffalumps might not like pigs. He concluded that it would be unwise to find out, especially since Pooh had told him to bring some bed, saying that he had a headache. But if there were no Heffalumps decided to go to the pit earlier than Pooh; if there was a Heffalump in it, he would run home and have a headache; if there wasnt, he would wait for Pooh at the pit. Having decided, he set out. string so that they could lead the Heffalump home! He would stay in in the trap, that would mean he would waste the whole day in bed. He

He tried bumping it against something but couldnt see what he was Just at that moment, Piglet looked into the pit.

In the meantime Pooh was struggling to get the jar off his head.

bumping. In frustration he lifted up his head and made a loud roaring noise. Help, help! cried Piglet. A Heffalump, a horrible Heffalump! It may be that with madness we, too, are often looking for

And he didnt stop shouting until he reached Christopher Robins house. Heffalumpsand thats just what we see.

104

What is Madness?

mad, are going mad, have been mad, have worried about going mador know someone who is. In any case, anyone who has journeyed to the far reaches of the mind or held someones hand who has knows what a frightening landscape it can be. And no one knows how far we can go just dont want to part with them. and still get back. Sanity is like an old pair of slippers, so comfortable we But what is madness really? Is it an imagination run wild? A

Madness isnt an easy topic for any of us. Chances are were

state of constant anguish? Ecstasy condemned by a sane world without it? An organic disease? A crime punishable by incarceration? The harder we search for a definition, the more it eludes us. Yet the

search continues because were not only looking for an answer to a social

problemwhat to do about thembut a clue to our own minds as well. loss of a loved one, failure on the job, nightmares, the ill-advised

Many of us may have had a brush with madness: too much drinking,

ingestion of a drug, overwork, frustrationweve all probably felt a

little crazy at some time in our lives. Its really not a pleasant feeling. Much of what made sense before becomes confused; what was valuable suddenly seems of less worth; the great meanings conferred on principles

105

or things and on which we based our existence can suddenly vanish. It can

be truly frightening, and the fear comes not only from the experience itself misery; one cant endure it forever. Im sure all can agree on that.

but from not knowing how long it will last. Anyone can weather temporary Yet in spite of our chance encounters with terror, we consider

ourselves reasonably sane. We must be, because were out on the street with no one leading us by the hand. What separates us from those sleeping in locked rooms? Its around this peculiar question that our

lingering fear of madness revolves, because if we dont know what madness is, we may not be able to prevent ourselves or our loved ones from going there. Sanity, then, is a precious but precarious thing. Complicating the problem is the fact that we really cant say with

certainty that this person is sane while that person isnt. Plainly,

theres no such clear-cut division. If we accept, as we considered in

the last chapter, a continuum of the mind going from one extreme to

another, then there may be no definitive sanity or insanity. It may be more

accurate to say that there are simply varying degrees of sanity (or insanity, a mind at the opposite end, too tight, may also be crazy. So maybe sanity optimum habitat. But where?

for the cynic) rather than sanity per se. A mind too loose may be crazy, and is a balance between the two. Somewhere in the middle we might find the

106

Toward a Definition to find plenty of things that may not be madness at all but legitimate How do we define madness? If we cant, Im sure well be able

human expression. We have to be careful here, because even madness itself may be legitimate human expression, or at least it might seem so to those who have followed the work of R.D. Laing, the British psychiatrist. How mad?

did we get ourselves into such a state of doubt about what is and what isnt We have ideas, and that may be part of the problem. Were simply

stumbling along trying to discover how to organize them. We havent

gotten so far yet. One realizes this by reading The Iliad, Old Testament,

Canterbury Tales or other stories from historys collection. Neither in self-

knowledge nor in wisdom are we all that different from the many characters By that we mean, how should we think? Maybe weve made a mistake in assuming that theres one best way. In our search for what judgment. it means to be human, maybe weve been a little premature in our The mind has so many ideas, some of them wild. One wonders if

in these revealing old narratives. Just how should we organize our thoughts?

this is the motivation for trying to create a shape that all might conform as a rebellion against this shape. We who have met mad people know

to. Historically, madness may not have been a variance of shape so much the bitterness they can hold toward the ideas of the day. Yes, there are

107

conspiracies against paranoid people, perhaps more real than we care small box from which well struggle to get out for eons to come.

to admit. In our haste to define consciousness, we may have created a If we were to step back in time to, say, fourteenth-century Europe,

wouldnt we consider the minds there a bit mad? Their anthropocentric world, their charms and amulets against evil spirits, their deification of kings, their acceptance of a life of endless toil in the field as human

destinythese things would mark the person of today as at least odd, if

not loony. And might those ancient toilers not make the same assessment

about us? With our crazy talk about religious freedom, democracy, relativity, life on other planets! We could easily risk being burned at the stake, so different (and threatening) our consciousness might be to them. What does

this tell us? Not only that consciousness can differ, but that insanity may be related to the age in which one lives as much as to some intrinsic condition take into account the organic theories as well. of the brain. But before we draw such venturesome conclusions, we ought to Much research today focuses on the neurophysiology of madness.

One of the ideas to come from this research is the concept of chemical

108

imbalance. The fact that schizophrenia, depression and other conditions can be treated with drugs lends a lot of support to this idea. Depressed patients treated with lithium or tricyclics, for example, often show a

marked improvement. This may lead us to believe that there was something wrong with the brain. Whether we realize it or not, this benign assumption can place a heavy burden on the individual. We can become the bearer of even driven us to mania or depression. We have some inner defect, some chemical flaw.

guilt, not the conditions of the time that may have contributed to or actually

Eagleton, a competent and popular senator, were ruined by the public disclosure of his prior psychiatric treatment for depression. One can

One might recall how the 1972 vice presidential aspirations of Thomas

imagine the furor if it had been something crazier. Still, the nation in one voice proclaimed its intolerance. Candidates long thereafter made public pronouncements of their mental stability by certifying lack of

any psychiatric treatment. One supposes, then, that its easier to single out an individual than it is to turn an introspective eye on the national than look at how our culture might have caused or precipitated those consciousness. We blame the stressed-out or depressed individual rather conditions. Its not society, the logic goes, but individuals, who are at fault. Thus the modern mind, like the medieval one, refuses to assess its own position but turns upon its casualties instead. For who are the truly mad if life of the nation?

not the casualties, refusing or just plain unable to participate in the mental

109

Lets not be unnecessarily contentious here. Theres no doubt

that chemistry plays a large role in insanity, just as it does in falling

in love or even falling asleep. But its emphasis obscures the role of the and the blame for insanity on the individual. And if the individual

social character of madness by placing the entire burden of proof for sanity alone is responsible, then you or I could conceivably be singled out any time in the future that we think and act independently of the prescribed pattern set by the age and the society we live in. In this way, civilization And as weve discovered, its the way of the genesand romancenot love.

maintains its appearance of integrity and the One Best Way is preserved.

How Do We Go Mad?

to think about this because it is, after all, a disagreeable subject. But lets plunge ahead anyway, if theres a chance of breaking an ideas hold on us.

What are the possible scenarios leading to insanity? We may not like

reality. First theres a wistfulness, a time of musing, of looking out of windows. This leads to stray thoughts: ideas not fitting into the

One common scenario is the progressive departure from accepted

pattern. Soon theres a waywardness; then, when it meets resistance,

110

intransigence. Counter pressures build and we see full-scale rebellion. in suppressing wistfulness in favor of a more arithmetical precision in

In the end, madness. Many of our nations schools serve as the vanguard thinking: a kind of mass preventive medicine. Could it be that in this way more predictable followers of today?

our youth are not encouraged to be the creative leaders of tomorrow but the Another common scenario is that of normality interrupted by a

sudden shock, followed by insanity. Accident, disease or other

emotionally-charged events are often said to drive some people over the this shell be treated with Prozac.

ledge. Since her husband died, she hasnt been the same, so to speak. And for Another path is normality giving way to insanity because of an

insane environment. Schizophrenics often come from schizophrenic although for patriotic reasons we dont call it insanity but battle

families, we say. Soldiers in wartime sometimes fall into this category, fatigue, updated since Viet Nam to post-traumatic stress disorder.

different, some of whom ultimately crack under the pressure to conform. Under this heading we might place such people as covert artistic or mathematical geniuses, for example. Einstein, idiosyncratic and out-

Yet another road to bedlam is described in the case of those who are born

thinking his teachers, couldnt pass his first college entrance exam. But in his worth in spite of his nonconformity. Others on the deviance list are

the long run he was able to slip through the net and succeed, thus proving not so fortunate, and can include such varieties as the cerebral palsied, the poetic, the driven, the gentle, the ultra-spiritual, and the hyper- (or hypo-)

111

sexed. The pressures to conform, coupled with ones inability to do so, can Andy Warhol. Marilyn Monroe.

create such tension, we suspect, to drive the person crazy. Howard Hughes. One more byway on this coarse map to dementia is a pervasive

boredom. It is, after all, the bored executive who runs off with a

twenty-year-old and destroys everything built over a lifetime, or the bored housewife or accountant who falls into drugs or the stupor of alcoholism. And even the boredom of success, suddenly seen as toward insanity.

hollow, can sometimes drives movie stars and other high-stakes players Finally, theres disappointment. The heavy investment and many

compromises made to maintain sanity often result in such paltry

returns that further effort is suspended. All of us have taken a step or two If these are some of the possible scenarios, whats the common

down this road at one time or another. Some of us have simply kept going. character of the afflictions? If we can make a wild speculation that sanity is being part of the worlddeeply involved in the affairs of

living, sensitive to the environment, relatively content with ones role as a human beingthen all the roads to insanity lead away from the world, perhaps to an inner world thats more satisfactory. Is society, then, to blame? We can see, if our descriptions are accurate, that society itself didnt cause the individual to go crazy in every case;

in the instance of the death of the loved one, we certainly cant blame

society, although maybe its the responsibility of societygood society

112

to provide the education and guidance which will minimize such extreme

reactions and provide supportive care when such situations arise. So maybe its hands of responsibility by claiming that death is a natural act beyond its control. It would seem unfair to always blame society for the cause of an

even in this case society could be considered an accessory, even as it washes

individuals insanitylets face it, in some people, their brain chemistry is a congenital hodgepodgeyet in an uncomfortable number of cases

we find society involved, either directly or indirectly. Its not too often that someone simply goes crazy. Even in situations where a person has taken hallucinogens and becomes permanently spifflicated, we know from the medical literature that the attending psychiatrist is often told that the new reality revealed by the experience showed too clearly the defects

of the old. This was especially true of LSD. We tend to blame the drug, but Or can we agree with Carlos Castaneda that hallucinogenic drugs simply open up paths to new worlds?

can we say with certainty that it was the drug itself that caused the insanity?

a person can go mad, but discovering why is a lot more difficult. Were

So we may be able to describe with some confidence a handful of ways

probably mistaken if we look for a single cause, though brain chemistry

certainly has a role. But lets not leave it at that and consider it understood. Its instructive to remember that when a person does go crazy, to whatever degree, its almost always away from society as we experience itand

113

seldom the other way around. While weve been asking whats gone wrong inside that persons head, maybe we should pay just as much attention to the ideas and behaviors he or she is turning away from. Does the person

see something we dont see? Or refuse to see? Lets not say society causes the equation.

insanity; thats far too simplistic. But by all means lets look at both sides of

When a Society Goes Mad

less partial in its assessments. Some quiet reading in the history section

While no society ever considered itself mad, history has been far

of the nearest library may shake even the most dedicated persons faith in the progress of civilization. For there have surely been mad societies, at least from our point of view. Were fond of pointing to Nazi Germany as

perhaps modern historys greatest example, although more recently North Korea has also been described by some as a society gone round the bend. Closer to home, a number of leaders of the sporadic rebellion of American Its a rare person who can confront an alien culture and feel that every-

Indians have described Euro-American society as being less than fully sane. thing about it is normal. An anthropologist like Gregory Bateson could live

with a primitive New Guinea tribe foreign to his experience and find nothing

114

essentially wrong with itbut he was an exceptional individual

variety of forms of human experience, look at a particular society and

Whats disquieting is that we can, given the incredibly wide

find that theres something fundamentally wrong with it. Its institutions,

its values, its system of justice, are flawed. For whatever reason, its peoples thinking became (or always has been) warped. And they in turn might look at our own and say essentially the same thing! These perceptions may be in the country in question. But whatever the case, theres something

stimulated by inflammatory government rhetoric or by firsthand experience unsettling about it. In these instances madness seems only so by definition. society has truly gone mad or has simply lost favor in our eyes.

And since interpretations differ from place to place, we may never know if a This confusing state of affairs leads us to a question we dare not ask

but are compelled tois humanity itself mad? Thoreau and more

modern kindred spirits felt induced to pose the question, but we dont know if this is due to their jaded point of view or to some special knowledge they as outsiders had gained. But even a cursory survey of todays newspapers shows that there are certainly grounds for asking. In order to answer this question, we might have to first consider

what a sane, healthy humanity should look like. This brings us back to the original problem: if point of view in part determines how we

judge if an alien society is mad, might not the same thing also be true

115

for judging whats sane? A Muslim might view a sane world as one

where all submit to the will of Allah, while a revolutionary might see it as one where the industrialized nations cease to exploit the Third World. A poet might view sanity as people relinquishing all their sanity as there are of insanity. As was said before, were creatures

money-and-power conceits. No doubt there are as many definitions of with ideas and were struggling to organize those ideas in some way.

The shape of this organization can appear rather unexpected to someone

with a different form of organization. Visit Pakistan or spend some time with the Hopi Indians in Arizona if you have any doubts about this. So humanity isnt mad so much as grappling with a seemingly endless continuum of consciousness. Which is the best way? My genes incline me to say mine is. so by people who are psychologically outside of them. Could the same thing If entire societies are mad, its only in the sense of being perceived

be true of individual madness, too?

Some Anatomical Complications

reality ofmadness. The cerebrum that allows us to think is divided

Theres another difficulty to consider when trying to determine the

into two hemispheres, each with its own distinctive functions. Not only do balance its two halves as well.

we have to cope with this marvelous higher brain weve been given, but to Much attention has been paid recently to this bifurcation of the

brain, thanks to the research of Roger Sperry and others. The left hemisphere has been found to be the center for rational, logical,

analytical functions and the right hemisphere is the locus of artistic,

116

intuitive, mystical activity. While there is some sharing of functions, by and large they can function more or less independently.

particularly after trauma where one of the hemispheres has been injured, Interestingly, one side or the other is usually dominant. Some

people are left-hemisphere oriented; they are typically logical and

analytical in their approach to the world. Others are right-hemisphere gives a tighter, more organized, angular shape to thoughts, while the latter provides a more open, free-floating configuration. These two and left, although the research has refrained from daring such a

oriented; theyre more non-rational or intuitive. The former orientation

broad shapes of thinking look suspiciously like the politics of the right supposition. More than that, cultures seem to encourage one or the other type of thinking; modern technological societies tend to be organized along left-hemispherical lines (rational, logical, materialistic, efficient, scientific) while religious and tribal societies more nearly follow the right hemisphere (mystical, intuitive, holistic). Theres much food for thought for the historianhow much might revolutions be the rebellion of one hemispheric-type of thinking against another? For example, the turmoil of the French Revolution leading to the military Islamic revolution in Iran, possibly evidence of a right-hemispheric

dictatorship of Napoleonthe triumph of left brain over right?or the movement to remove the modern encroachments of a rational, scientific

117

type of thinking that has undermined the formers authority.

higher brain, but two. In rare individuals these two brains may be

Thus evolution has dealt us an interesting hand: not only one

balanced, for they are, after all, simply two sides of the same organ. allows just that. In injured persons, as I mentioned, the functions of

And the corpus callosum, the webbing of nerve tissue connecting them, a traumatized left hemisphere (for example) begin to be taken up by the right. So there need be no war between the halves, although we dont seem to have learned this yet. Were still in the stage of figuring out what was a tad slow in providing us with a suitable mechanism for

were supposed to be doing with all this new equipment. Maybe evolution integrating the two halves. If we can be patient another ten or twenty

thousand years, as some have lamented, maybe well have just one brain his or her breath!

an integrated wholeto work with. The reader is cautioned here not to hold The fact that we cant wait lies at the core of our dilemma. We

have highly sophisticated yet imperfect equipment, a veritable jumble of operating instructionsboth religious and civiland little time to get it all working properly. How can we define madness under these

118

conditions when we might all be a little unbalanced? Yet people do go mad, were sure of that. Can we be certain theres something wrong with their brains when were all, in a sense, between a rock and a hard place?

Being Oneself

weve been looking for Heffalumps. We dont know what insanity is, shapes we see, that must be insanity. Were inclined to laugh with see our own possible errors.

It seems possible, although no one has proven it, that all along

but were determined to pin it down once and for all. Whatever strange Christopher Robin as he discovers Piglets error, but were less inclined to Winnie the Poohs head got stuck in the honey pot and he

donned the shape of the unknown. An objective assessment might have led Piglet to simply see a silly bear with a pot stuck on his head instead of the phantasm he saw. What Milne has given us is an acute insight into the workings of our own minds. Piglets fear, coupled with the bias In our case, we seem to have institutionalized our response of his expectations, let his imagination overrun his powers of reasoning. to the bear with the honey pot on his head. Any such unknown shape is automatically madnessunless theres a payoff to society, such as an industrial fortune or great works of art. Then we soften the diagnosis to

119

simple eccentricity.

him that he fled in terror? Perhaps too simply, it was something he

What is it that Piglet saw in the pit? What was so frightening to

had never seen before. Poor little Piglets thinking was too narrow and he just couldnt adjust to the sudden surprise of something beyond it. When we look into another persons eyes, were looking into a pit of

sorts. We, too, seem unprepared for what well find. Have we, like Piglet,

made wild speculations beforehand and so have a hair-trigger response for terror? Moreover, is it possible that if our consciousness were broader and rejecting all the rest, there might be less madness in the world? Less we gave the shapes we saw a fairer test instead of accepting the familiar and because less is seen and less because fewer people would be driven there? When we try to do a Mercator projection of the mind in order to

imagine that everything is organized in an orderly way with straight

120

lines and right angles, of course theres going to be distortion at the not necessarily because of its true quality, just as Greenland is not farther away from the equator you go, the greater the distortion appears. The same might be said for our view of the mind. The

outer edges. But the distortion comes from the way of looking at it and larger than the United States but only looks that way on the map. The

farther you go away from a particular societys typical personality, its equator, the greater the distortion appears. That every culture has a assessment is. different equator should give us an indication of how faulty this type of The heart of the matter is that people are simply not allowed to

stand on the basis of their own inner integrity. One must emulate the

idealsocially, psychologically, economically, physicallyor theres

going to be friction. This is how modern societies function. The result is

that many of us are wearing a mask, sometimes several masks. It seems that some of us must compromise our inner selves in order to satisfy a sociallyeven pressured into madness. defined normality. Those who refuse run the risk of being considered mad or Please note: this is not a call for license! Nor for the relaxation of mental

discipline! Not in the least. Its simply to suggest examining the perspective instilled by our culture. Its ide fixe has encouraged us to be suspicious of people who are differentthe genetic call for our survival above all else cultures do this, but then this contradicts what weve always been taught the world.

rather than supporting a wider, more inclusive view. We could argue that all that our American way is somehow more advanced, more worthy of leading

121

ideal personor even an acceptable oneso exclusive in its narrowness that countless among us may have to wear masks of one sort or another in order to fit in. The inner circle of the elect may be so limited and

The fact remains that were offered an arbitrary conception of an

the consciousness outside it deemed so foreign that love as a vital, ever-

expanding force may remain all but unknown. Yes, well spread romance had from real love; lots more. If only we could see it.

around the planet, shout it from the mountaintopsbut theres more to be How wide can you expand your mind, dear reader?

122

123

CHAPTER SEVEN Love and Science An Introduction to Science

aboutpossibly a reflection of the biological command for personal

The separation of people from one another weve been talking

survivalhas many manifestations, as weve seen. As a result, romance thrives while love has a hard time of it. Then, when romance fails, we become disillusioned with love. Therethats the crux of our problem. surely know by now that feathers will fly!

We now turn our attention to science with a more hopeful eye, though you Our first meetings with science can be truly pleasurable ones. An

afternoon at the planetarium; hearing the hydrogen bark in a test

tube in chemistry class; making zinc-and-sulfur rockets in ones basement;

standing in the freezing night air but not noticing it because we were waiting breathlessly for our first lunar eclipsethese are some of the delights from which many of us begin a lifelong embrace with science. This is the way I started. I remember my first chemistry set and the countless hours of

contented experimentation it afforded; I also remember nearly setting

the house on fire while making home-made Roman candles when a quart

jar of half-made rocket fuel accidently ignited. If youve ever smelled a match immediately after lighting it, you know why our house was uninhabitable

124

for the next two days. Then there was the time the snake escaped from the terrarium. It seems that to in order to explore the unknown, some risk is involved. as children we may have taken such risks without thinking, since childhood is simply a state of inexperience. We don't know what will happen, so the possible benefits to be gotten from our experiments, including enjoyment itself, seem to us to outweigh the liabilities. Even the premature ignition of my Fourth of July fireworks didn't deter me in any way from my path toward understanding the mysteries, although it certainly affected my parents differently. I was willing (unknowingly) to risk everythingin order to satisfy my craving for knowledge and independent research. What a disappointment high school chemistry class was, making innocuous acids and esters while Promethean dabbling was strictly forbidden. The chemistry teacher was, after all, responsible to a cautious principal and an even more cautious board of education, while we test-tube maniacs felt responsible only to "Science." Under its noble and pretective aegis, my friends and I felt we could embark on any experiment, no matter how dangerous, as long as we used our wits, due caution,

125

and extermely accurate measurements. The unknown, never a deterrent, actually encouraged us.Bystanders were simply urged to stand clear, while we flew by the seat of our pants. Imagine my surprise when, fifteen years old and having just tested some of our Fourth of July firecrackers-the size of sticks of dynamite--the police came to our house and confiscated our entire laboratory. It was reality poking its head into our private little world of alchemy. There seems to be a lesson here. Love of science, like any love,

can lead us down some rose-colored avenues. We feel the personal risk is worth itif were overly cautious we probably dont deserve to be called scientists. Most who challenge the unknown accept the personal peril. But there are often, if not always, social consequences, more so The offspring of our love affair can be troublesome or downright needs understanding. as the world grows smaller and the power of our discoveries increases. dangerous, while we as doting parents see only a love-child who merely Science, then, is not just a personal odyssey to truth or a way to while away

the hours in ones basement, but also a process of unleashing upon those around us

incompetents ignorant of our lofty designs, as I may have been tempted to think back then, but people with legitimate concerns about how the fruits of experimentation are going to affect, even change their lives.

forces they may not be prepared to contend with. The community isnt made up of

126

Science as a System of Thought

us to minimize any detrimental social effects. We could, for example, more effectively deal with problems of radiation, herbicides and pesticides, or industrial effluents. But the fact is that when one begins to point outor inevitably to arise to defend the reasoning that produced them and to

If science were merely a set of procedures, it might be easier for

worse, protestthe adverse effects of such things, a chorus of voices seems promise that under the watchful eye of experts and with the development

of even greater technologies, all such problems will be solved. Social and

environmental effects notwithstanding, theres a general feeling that the way of science is somehow correct. So rather than withdrawing the offending product or process, we often find ourselves repeating the pattern and

expecting that yet more science will somehow ameliorate the side-effects in

question. The catalytic converter is a typical example: solving the problem of car-created air pollution with yet another technologybut did it solve the problem or merely move the crisis a little further down the road? And the list of technologies that are variations on this band-aid theme is

distressingly long. Your cigarettes contain harmful chemicals? Add a filter! become a way of thinking. What began centuries (even millennia) ago as an attempt of a few to comprehend the world by systematic observation has developed into a way most of us view life. Weve come to accept policy decisions and many personal ones as well. Science, then, isnt just a method of experimentation but in fact has

science as the path to knowledge and the foundation on which to base public

127

story about Moses parting the Red Sea, we may have accepted it pre-scientific thinking. We hadnt yet been taught logic, fluid

Lets look at a few examples. When we as children first heard the

without question. One might say that we, like primitive peoples, had mechanics, or the analysis of oral tradition and literary myth. Armed among us could confidently say that the parting of the Red Sea was

with these new tools of understanding as we grew older, the enlightened a physical improbability, perhaps ascribable to folk storytellers who enthusiastically retold the dramatic escape of the Israelites from the Egyptian soldiers. In other words, first we simply believed what we

embroidered their stories to impart a sense of the miraculous as they

were told but later felt compelled to apply a scientific analysis. Of course part of our cultural heritage. But our modern doubting of old truths is revealing.

we dont make too much of this because the story is, in fact, an important

faith and a childlike appreciation of the miraculous nevertheless try

Its also worth noting that many of those who still maintain their

to apply science or the scientific way of thinking to these old truths. the boost it would give their faith were they to find it. Seeing is

Some people, for example, are looking for Noahs ark. We can imagine believing, we say, and in saying so, we reveal how deep the materialism of in the age of science, fundamentally were all scientists.

our thinking is. All scientists are, after all, materialists. And because we live Its difficult for us to look at anything without analyzing it or applying

128

logic of some sort. If someone says he saw the Virgin Mary, we run a minor research project. What were you drinking? we ask. Did you take any drugs? we test the plausible alternative hypotheses one by one, while the Mexican peasant seeing such a vision immediately becomes a village saint. This is the difference between modern and traditional thinking. This weighing of the evidence in order to determine the truth, or Could it have been a holographic projection? Marsh gas? Like true scientists

letting the scientific experts weigh the evidence for us, has become our way of life. There should be a logical explanation for everything.

Rationality becomes authoritative. Some people arent so rational, many

contend. Theyre not scientists, that is. Women (as the tired clich goes), or jazz musicians. But as well see, were all accomplices in the undermining of tradition and the spread of logic to all nooks and crannies of proud flag. society. Some of us are simply slower, others faster, to rally round its

Why Science? Science enjoys enormous popularity today. There are television programs showing its wonders and virtues; its the darling of our universities; scientists are esteemed members of our societywhy? No doubt in part because science seems to answer our basic need to know.

129

We put great faith in institutions that give us a sense of security against the inner and outer darknesses. One has to marvel at how dependable the Catholic Church was,

for instance, to shine a light into those dark places for a millennium and papacy and much of its power was sundered, the security blanket began to shrink. There had to be another means of security. We can see in

a half. But when Martin Luther blew the whistle on the corruption of the

retrospect how science began to fill the gap, not only as a set of procedures the world.

used to test hypotheses but as a way of examining and better understanding If the Church was able to explain the world to the faithful,

science was nearly as successful at it. It not only offered explanations but was able to discredit all previous explanations as myth or superstition. Remember Moses and the Red Sea. It wasnt a direct attack at first, of course, since the Church was still powerful and heresy still very much a crime. Sciences assault on religion was more subtle, simply by creating a paradigm in which anything that couldnt proof, no legitimacy. be seen or measured was automatically denied the sacrament of proofno

130

predecessors. Religion wasnt eliminated but simply dropped to a secondary position as a source of knowledge. The Scopes trialtemporarily Jennings Bryan and traditional religious doctrine up to national delaying the teaching of evolution in the schools but holding William ridiculeis a characteristic example of this replacement process. Its just as prevalent nowadays; with, for example, the zealous Oxford zoologist God and religion. Richard Dawkins on a worldwide writing and speaking campaign against The concept of proof, which we take for granted today, is

Science rose, not in cooperation with, but at the expense of its

foreign to the traditional mind. Simple peoples didnt need proof, only faith. Moral grounds provided reason enough to believe. We moderns Kierkegaard, whose mission was to explain how people living in an increasingly rationalistic age could relate to traditional beliefs. Kierkegaard tried to solve the problem with his leap of faith. He couldnt have accepted this without the help of moral philosophers like

recognized that an increasing number of people could no longer naively in a rational manner. His leap was to accept their truths anyway

believe in religious myths of the pastbecause they couldnt be verified because of their innate wisdom. His purpose for doing this was to

help Christians maintain their faith in the face of scientific incursion. The it came.

proof, then, was in the new life, not in the truth of the doctrine from which The forerunner of this approach was Kant, who a hundred years

earlier said that even the existence of God couldnt be proven by rational means. Yet he felt that people did have a capacity for

metaphysics, where such questions as morality and faith could be

131

considered. Reason alone, he thought, wasnt broad enough to cover the expanse of human experience. We can see, then, that as science chipped away at the foundations

of religious belief, a new breed of philosophers arose to comfort an of faith proved to be so difficult, many leaned on science itself for security and understanding, since it didnt require faith or spiritual effort of any kind. Let the experts, like the religious experts before dependable way of looking at the world and a few simple rules to live by. In addition to helping explain reality, science also fulfilled

increasingly insecure humanity. And maybe because Kierkegaards leap

them, explore the ultimate truthsthe average person wanted only a

another deep human need: order. Society doesnt have a high look at our relationship to the environment. Rivers must be

tolerance for anything wild or free, as weve already noted. One only need dammed, fields must be paved, trees must be cut, wildlands surveyed

and fencedevery aspect of the world must come under some form of

control. We must irrigate the desert, alter plant genetics, regulate the size of

animal populations and an endless list of other activities bent on controlling

or subduing our natural surroundings. Science gives us the power to attempt lessened. Our pillows seem softer at night.

such a thing. In this way, our fears about the wild, the unpredictable, may be On the social front, people, too, can be wild. Guides or restraints

are necessary. The Ten Commandments, the Code of Hammurabi, the

the Egyptian bureaucracy, the Constitution, civil statutes, Maos Little Red

132

Bookwhat are all these but attempts to guide people who might not be inclined to guide themselves? When the Church lost much of its muscle, efficiency gave new support to social regulation. And the inventions of here again science took up the slack. Its orderly thinking and penchant for sciencethe traffic light, the assembly line, the speedometer, the turnstile, the alarm clock, the standardized test, the computerall have imposed drastically from the past. a shape on some aspect of our lives. Our entire way of life has changed Science, answering our needs not simply as a method of experimentation

but as a way of thinking and doing, has helped us weave a web of control over the material worldand over ourselves as well. But the problem of control through a materialist philosophy, of course, is its spiritual void. External control is substituted for inner controlfor without a

transcendent value system theres less inner control. Yet science itself will solve the problem, apparently. Better technology, more sophisticated law computerization and so on. The fault is clear. Science tries to remedy the illogical thing to do. enforcement, more efficient schools, more organized bureaucracies, greater lack of spirituality and subsequent moral control with more science, a most And whats the alternative? A return to that old time religion? Nothing

could be more repugnant to a rational and sophisticated mind than to plunge back into the dogma that science rescued us from in the first place. Next

133

to some of the superstitions, prejudices and often distinctly unspiritual was a devoted follower.

activities of the past, science looks like a clean machine indeed. I myself

The Fate of Religious Belief

as a religious people. We often point to our high level of attendance at worship services, the highest in the Western world. But a more

In spite of our scientific outlook, we generally think of ourselves

accurate assessment might follow if we looked to our daily behavior rather than what we do on the Sabbath. The truth is that most of us are modernists at heart with a more or less rationalistic viewpoint. daily living, we tend to be rationalists first, believers second.

This is not to say that we dont believe in God, but only that in our The reader may permit me a brief anecdote to illustrate this point.

For a time during my grad school days I shared a large old house with twice a week, reading the Bible daily, and in general driving the rest of us crazy with her search for Jesus grace. Nevertheless she was

several other students. One was a committed Christian, going to church

a likable sort and for more than a year we had a happy home. Finally,

134

at the end of the summer during which we had sublet several rooms,

she decided to go back to her hometown. At the same time, a subtenant

unexpectedly moved out one month early, leaving us to pay his share of the

rent. Since there were three regulars left at that time, including the woman now moving out, it was proposed that we would each contribute some extra money that month. We had, after all, shared the joys of living together, so of money was small, maybe an extra thirty dollars from each of us. Well, out, she said; its not my problem. it seemed appropriate to band together when a problem arose. The amount to make a long story shortour Christian housemate refused. Im moving You cant blame her, really. She was just relying on her cultures

ethos, which maintains that ones responsibilities are defined by civil law and custom. Logically, she shouldnt have to pay extra, since her tenure had expired and her account was clear. Christian ideals had no place in this secular negotiation. So even though she was earnestly

seeking the path to heaven, in real-life situations she was a rationalist. It's

135

the age we live in.

sense of shared responsibility is the hallmark of modern thinking.Love thy neighbor has been supplanted by know thy rights. Its not that play exclusively by those rules anymore. There are new rules that were ignorant of moral teachings; its just that were not expected to govern our responses to situations, while the moral exhortations of part of our cultural treasury but often out of place in the cold

This reliance on the logic of secular rules instead of an inner

Sabbath sermons are relegated to the status of myth or folk wisdom, reality of the day-to-day negotiations of life. Its easier, then, simply to believe in the deity of Jesus or Buddha and worship them than to modern world. apply their seemingly illogical teachings (e.g., turn the other cheek) to the In this case, it wasnt religion that failed us but rationalism. If were

to understand love, which way, then, shall we turn?

Science as an Ideology

trudge onward through the conceptual thicket a bit more. There may be a clearing ahead, a vantage point from which we can see far in many directions.

If the intrepid reader has followed the argument thus far, lets

scientific point of view is neutral. We learn that it is, in fact, the only

We usually think of science as being objective. That is, we say the

unbiased way of evaluating reality, since all previous ways had some path to truth. But one wonders if there has ever been a way

ideological ax to grind. Thus science rises above its competitors as a pristine

136

of thinking that was actually neutral.

value neutrality. Already weve noted a discrepancy: the inclination of science to conduct research without due concern for its social consequences. I was certainly guilty of this as a teenager, but surely

It might be good for us to take a closer look at sciences claim of

no more guilty, for example, than the researchers who developed the

birth control pill in the 1950sthe use of which was forbidden to nearly a quarter of Americas people because of their religion. And this research helped precipitate a sexual revolution that reached every corner of the

nation, summarily disrupting the value systems of scores of millions. This

is an example of how sciences design to control Nature takes precedence over religious or social consequences. Is this neutrality, then, or the myth didnt? Well, we could marginalize them as enemies of progress. of neutrality? Yes, we loved the Pill. I certainly did. But what of those who This is a serious charge, and not to be made lightly. There does

seem to be an ideology to science. Its goal is the ultimate submission of Nature to rational control. Its able to mask its partiality by subjecting life to a material analysis, thus discrediting religious desire only for truth. Not only scientists do this, but all of us, because we all live in a scientific age. Every time we go to the

morality, and then covering its bias by claiming strict neutrality and a

dentist for a checkup, were subjecting the universe to rational control. And we rely on the dentist, not God, for our dental health. Nothing could seem less ideological.

doesnt appear biased to us. But the fact that we could research and

Since we take our point of view for granted, it seems natural. It

137

market a contraceptive pill and change the sexual morality of millions past, where peoples values were the primary consideration of any social advance. Today the advance itself is the important thing.

virtually overnight demonstrates how different our thinking is from the

Extending control over Nature and diminishing the role of values in the process is by any standard a value itself. Science is not value-free; its values are just more difficult to see. It might not be too unfair to say that there are really two value

systems competing for our loyalty. One is the entire range of technical values, whose goal is to increase control over some aspect of life. The other is the realm of social values, for example religious or spiritual values, aesthetics, and so on. Technical valuesprogress is our most

important productseem to have a definite advantage. Highways are built against the wishes of communities, weapon system design proceeds against all warnings for prudence, unlabeled genetically modified foods are placed in our supermarkets heedless of protest, cities continue sprawling with no into the environment with little knowledge of their long-term effects, the study of art and philosophy is relegated to a frill in our schoolsthe

sense of aesthetic consideration, drugs are prescribed and chemicals released

list goes on but weve heard all this before. Every day we hear the claims

and counterclaims. But the technical viewpoint is resolute in its campaign

138

to prevail. And the fact that theres money to be made through technical

innovation makes the argument all the more vociferous. Thats whats often so frustrating about scientific objectivity. Legitimate public discussion about the direction of the technological society is too often dismissed as being hysteria or obstructionism. Public life is filled with such discover truth.

instances. This is an ideology speaking, not a set of procedures designed to This inevitable urge of every ideology to discredit competitors is

whats beginning to give science what seems to some a diabolical, science close to the closed mind that sees only one way that we were speaking of view other perspectives with magnanimity.

fiction-like character. And if Im not mistaken, this pattern is uncomfortably in the last several chapters. A mind unable to transcend the mainstream and Sciencethe modern, rational way of thinkingcan be far from

neutral. It appears neutral because of its claims of objectivity and the fact that were socialized into its perspective from an early age. For those who disagree with some of its policies and directions, it can be this only too well. Its control is often disguised as expertise or

every bit as dogmatic as the medieval Church was. Some of us know technical expedience and one has a difficult time disputing it. We

are either hysterical laymen who are simply uninformed, or we just dont understand that because of our economic systems dependence on it, the Should we really be so pugnacious here? After all, science has technical show must go on. One doesnt stand in the way of progress.

139

delivered us from much of the superstition and ignorance of the past. Im just as thankful for that as anyone; probably more so. But we simply have to get to the bottom of our overall way of thinking in order to discover the impediments to love we might find there. Were on the lookout for obstacles and we ought to cover all the bases.

The Role of Technology

glamorous handmaiden of science. The explicit purpose of technology is

Lets turn our attention more closely to technology, the powerful and

to impose control over some facet of life. Whether the jackhammer or the weather satellite, tetracycline or the thermostat, each innovation is part of a plan for ever-increasing control over our world. In effect, Nature is one might even say to conquer. But why should we conquer Nature? not seen as something to live with, as traditional societies believe, but The goal of controlling every possible aspect of experience is embedded

140

in our modern concept of progress. We usually think of such progress as a universal human desire, but is it? We might be surprised to discover that only about three hundred years old in the Western world and even more this preeminent concern for supremacy over Nature through technology is recent in the East. Before that, it was something to be discouraged because it upset the traditional way of life. Certainly someone could invent a more itself was neither encouraged nor welcomed because it invited disruption. this as a matter of peace of mind being held in higher esteem than rapid well into the twentieth century (except Japan, which held out until the progress as an essential part of the human situation. efficient plow without incurring the wrath of his neighbors, but innovation The noted nineteenth-century American historian Henry Adams explained material gain. The same opinion existed in Asian societies as well, even nineteenth). So its only recently that weve come to view technological New technical systems, bringing with them new values, always

supplant existing systems. The incandescent electric bulb, for example, not only replaced the gas lamp but ushered in a new age of nightlife, both in work and play. The automobile, while it brought many benefits,

unquestionably aided in the fragmentation of communities, not to mention the family itself. In traditional societies, on the other hand, existing ways of doing things stayed in place for long periods of time. People generally

141

knew what was in store for them because patterns of life were simpler. Its one of the ironies of science that while it attempts to increase the predictability of life by exerting ever more controlthrough technology introduction of those technologies actually makes life more uncertain. Lets look at the car and the automotive revolution a moment. Henry

Fords development of the car and the assembly line to mass-produce it valuesat times, neighbor against neighbor, child against parentwas

precipitated a society-wide change. A Pandoras box of human feelings and opened that few people anticipated. (Technologys role is often obscured because technology and behavior act back on one another: the car encouraged people to move and a mobilized people needed the car, so to speak.) Certainly there were other factors in this massive upheaval of the American social question that change was accelerated rapidly by technologythe car even well before the war. At any given time, people are often not fully

landscapeWorld War I had a profound influence as wellbut theres no

aware of the relationship. Regardless, its always easier to simply follow everyone is. So the power of the technology over the valuethis is one of the hallmarks of modernityalmost guarantees that technological

along, especially if one is a consumer of the new technologiesand nearly

innovation more than personal values will guide society. Today, what

parent prefers their child playing video games or vegetating on Facebook to being outside in the fresh air, and yet parents are virtually powerless to act on this. Life is therefore not necessarily rendered more value-oriented by how can we expect certainty? science but often less so. And with values changing left and right like this, This is precisely why we have to say that the control, the certainty

142

we seek through technology, is illusoryincreasingly, technology plays and we dance, even if were unsure of the steps. If were looking for something more satisfying than this in life, if we want to guide change instead of stumbling along after it, we may have to re-evaluate not only the role of technology but maybe our entire notion of progress.

Consequences of Technology

the claims. Were supposed to gain the upper hand in our struggle with destiny. But lets face facts. The technology we develop to

The world is our oyster, through technology. Thats how I read

strengthen ourselves and our hold over the world may be having the opposite resultnot only have the escalator and the television and the car weakened our bodiesand made us fat!but the cumulative effect is, just at a time in history when we thought we were in a position to of choice to the demands of the surrounding technologies.

is an increasing submission to the demands of the technological world. That shape our own destinies, we are in fact relinquishing much of our freedom If we would dare refuse to live without the car, the achievement

test, the cell phone, the computer, or the way of doing things they create,

we would inevitably fail because wed find we cant successfully negotiate life in a society in which the use of these things is an integral part. Look at

143

the low socio-economic status of the remnants of the 60s counter-culture

who reject the machinestill subsisting in Americas hinterlands (and urban who try to maintain traditional valuesits revealing, to say

bohemias), for example. Or consider the social position of Native Americans the least. Some rebels in America survive, like the first-century Christians, by creating an in-group virtue of their meager circumstances and by nurturing a knowledge that the larger group, not them, is on its way to

Judgment. Ive been out there; Ive talked to those folks! And believe me, loyal and contented members of the larger society, no such rejection of or

there are many. But the fact is that for the majority who consider themselves failure with technology is possible. If you want to be somebody, you interface with the machine. Its that simple. The question of freedompersonal choice isnt even considered. Innovations must be absorbed by all. When computer e-mail became

possible, who refused it because it added clutter to our lives and destroyed

the forethought and aesthetics of the hand-written letter? One doesnt refuse, of course, just as one doesnt refuse to have a cell phone and forever carry it around, intrusive or not. We must participate. When the first farmers began musicians, considered such individualists, had to fall into step when the to use nitrate fertilizers, then pesticides, soon all had to. Even contemporary synthesizer and drum machine were invented. The rebel poet Bob Dylan can really afford to.

himself felt he had to go electric. No one wants to be left behind. No one The Sirens song of technology is that it extends to even the average

person a tremendous savings of physical work and an increase in personal pleasure. The vacuum cleaner and the stereo, for example, affordable by

all. A family of modest means can listen to the Berlin Philharmonic playing

144

Prelude to The Afternoon of a Faun in the comfort of its spotless living room. This is as much a miracle as changing the bread and wine during the Eucharist, judging by the sheer wonder of it and the number of eager communicants, though the music is more likely to be the thump-thumpthump of rock or hip hop. In any case, theres no disputing the rise in

material living standards and subsequent increase in opportunities afforded

by technology. That this seems to be bought and paid for by a broader, more diffuse loss of freedom is the tragic side of technology, the side that doesnt glitter. So while the range of choices seems vastly enlarged, the overall pattern of ones life becomes increasingly planned from without. Im free day after day in rush-hour traffic, whether I want to or not. And I need

to buy any kind of car I choose, for example, but buy one I must, and spend a car alarm, though I hate the things! How free am I, then? So it seems picture, a less than solid ring to it. Other Considerations

to me that technology as a liberator has, when one considers the larger

made from afar and based on technical expedience and not the long-range

None of us wants to live in a Kafkaesque world where decisions are

consequences to our own lives. But the increasing specialization of technical knowledge and the sophistication of social systems (information storage and farther and farther from the citizenyou and me. This de-politicizing retrieval, communications, education, and so on) places the decision-making

145

effect may have grave implications for a democratic society, as the German now be dismissed as expressions of misunderstanding or ignorance. Only the experts really know. Thus challenges to the accepted way of doing

sociologist Jurgen Habermas so convincingly argues. Legitimate dissent can

things can be discredited instead of being taken at face value with the idea

that this person has something to say. Who among us has not already been silenced or ignored more than once by the pronouncements of experts? This book itself may never see the light of day. Another side effect of the unconditional spread of technology and

the technological way of thinking is the separation it can create among down by specialized curricula, and study is being further

people. Here we are again! In schools, former groupings have been broken individualized by computer use, cubicle-like study areas and

intensification of interpersonal competition nurtured by ever-increasing

testing, tests which themselves are becoming highly technical orchestrations of rational knowledge. Other innovations, especially ones we call modern conveniences, are having a similar effect. The automatic teller machine, the television, the iPod, the vibrator, the computer gamewe need these things and yet all have reduced face-to-face human interaction and substituted private experience. For those of us who are sick and tired of

146

people, these may be welcome attractions. But a weary humanity cant afford to ignore its problems and withdraw into private, self-serving activitiesthere can be no solutions this way.

the separation of all of us from Nature. Were losing our natural

In addition to the separation of people from each other, theres

environment so rapidly that some think we can never regain it, some scientists included. The rivers we swam in as children may now be unclean, the woods we walked in have become shopping malls, the view of deer we used to see are gone. They paved Paradise, just as Joni Mitchell sang forty years ago. Has the pace lessened at all? If were part of Nature and we ravage Nature, what does the future hold for us? For our children? various and clever tunes as we prance unknowingly toward the abyss.

the distant mountains has been blocked by buildings or smog, the foxes and

By all indications were following a pied piper of sorts, mesmerized by his

The Promise of Enlightenment

and belief in a better future came from the period of Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, a time of great social and intellectual

In spite of it all, were still optimistic. A great part of this optimism

147

ferment. Bonds of superstition were overthrown and a new faith was born, that of freedom and progress, based on reason. Truth could be open to all. At last, humanity could be free. The American Revolution itself was based on this. more circumscribed past. Moreover, our minds are too sophisticated and our nervous systems too highly stimulated to make the transition to an earlier, plainer life. A few people here and there can go back to the farm, so to speak, but they may be generally inclined to simplicity to Believing in this promise, we certainly dont want to return to a

begin with or have a strong Zen-like will, enabling them to unlearn their modern ways. The rest of us would rather deal with the present, the way things are, as that embodies the hope that they can be better. possibly even by trying to improve it. Theres no treason in being critical of However, the difficulty in arguing for a closer examination of our

modern ideasthe scientific societyis that one is left open to the

charge of wanting to return to the past. But is that the only option? Is every questioner of modernity a secret admirer of Norman Rockwell or Robert Frost? By writing this chapter, do I paint myself as a Luddite? The idea of

progress underlying modern thought seems to neutralize all opposition by asserting that any serious reflection about it means a desire to go backward. I sure dont want to and I doubt that you do, either. The old ways arent necessarily better, as we know. Weve

struggled long and hard to free ourselves from the tyranny of the past. But if its not clear already, the present is becoming just an extension of the human spirit, in new clothes, as generations past experienced. of this restrictive past. Its beginning to produce the same confinement The claim of todays technological society is that it enhances freedom

and yet theres every indication that it fundamentally restricts freedom.

148

At the same time, theres ample evidence to demonstrate that it diffuses

opposition by ignoring or discrediting its critics. If so, modernitys essential truth, that its new and different, is false: its really not so different from the past. Its ironic that the threat of fire-and-brimstone of an earlier age,

painstakingly dismantled piece by piece by the rational mind, has now would call that progress!

been resurrected by technology via weapons of mass destruction. Some

Love and Science

accept love as a basis for social interaction. On the whole, we deal

Love is especially important in a society that has declined to

with one another today on a rational-legal basis rather than on moral precepts. This is the concept of social contract. I remember once being assigned a seat in the smoking section of a planethe last seat available,

though I didnt smoke. The man beside me was a chain smoker and nearly

made me sick with his incessant puffing. I told him I was becoming ill and and Im allowed to smoke. Theres our modern morality for you. The

asked him to refrain for a while. His reply? This is the smoking section romantic pleas for love in two-minute pop songs make us wonder if love is relevant at all, save in finding and keeping a lover or lamenting ones loss. Love as a governing social influence remains minimal. If the world seems

149

cold and cruel sometimes, maybe thats the reason.

transcendent moral principles. Too often we are, like my university

Today societys power lies in laws and conventions rather than

housemate or the man on the plane, content to follow technicalities instead a force in America to be reckoned with, is lacking.

of an inner sense of responsibility toward one another. Love as a strength, as Science is principally a materialist way of thinking, so loveor any

other non-material expressionis like a reed bending in the wind. Our dimensions of human experience. Indeed these dimensions are almost

modern point of view seems unable to come to terms with other important daily discreditedas being too airy-fairy. But no ideology, no matter how logical, can ever erase our need to experience the sacred side of life as well. malefactors. Were all scientists. One might make the claim that weve just gotten carried away with its promises and havent been able to anticipate its consequences. We seem to have failed to appreciate the Science isnt some dark power, nor are scientists heartless

ideological nature of science and the very real threat that this poses to our to use science in a fulfilling way. Enlightenment, as it were, never came. While this may seem to be a cause for despair, we have to recognize that

freedom. Certainly this isnt the fault of science but our cultures inability

150

social reality is a human product. Its not some mindless monolith we we have to bow down to. We ourselves support, by our ready participation, and the satisfaction of material needs. But if we have any intention of open our minds, open them even wider than science is able to admit. the society of the day. There are rewards, certainly, including convenience understanding love and daring to create a more loving world, well have to

151

CHAPTER EIGHT Love and Religion

The Foundations of Religion

weve got just a bit more ground to cover before well sit back and take a reflective look at the whole territory at once. In this chapter well turn our attention to religion in order to see the role it, too,

Weve come a good ways in our little cultural expedition, and

plays in helping or hindering us in our quest to more fully comprehend love. To do this, well begin with a look at the foundations of religion. One can say that from the dawn of the human race, there has

been religion. People have been preoccupied with God, or gods, from the very beginning. We dont know, of course, if pithecanthropus erectus or australopithecus were theists, but then we dont really know if they people, its safe to say that there was some form of worship.

were human, as we understand the term. However, wherever there were Where does this idea of God come from? Why is it so universal,

even today in the more secular countries where science is strongest?

Whether we journey through the jungles of Yucatan or shop along the

boulevards of Paris, we find temples of one sort or another. Civilizations

152

long gone or civilizations today, it makes no difference. A tiny island in

Micronesia, Manhattan Island in Americawe find not only the buildings but the amulets and icons that are the visible reflection of a vast psychospiritual world that lies within human consciousness. An insight about this consciousness that usually strikes only

skeptics as significant is the fact that Christians generally live in one part of the world, Hindus in another, and Muslims in still another. Even a cursory look at a map of world religions demonstrates that most people dont selectively choose their religion but rather inherit one. This doesnt mean its particular qualities as much as because it was there.

theres no substance to their faith, but only that it wasnt chosen because of For example, is one a Christian because one generally believes in Christian teachings, or does one believe in Christian teachings because one is born a Christian? If we go to the Middle East and North Africa, well find devout

followers of Mohammed. Wed have great difficulty converting them to another religion because theirs is the true way. Lets go to India, then, to preach a new doctrine. We may glean a handful of the

disaffected, but by and large our success would be negligible. Why? Because Hindus have neither the need nor the desire to abandon the lives, if were to take them at their word). Then lets move on to spiritual system that they have practiced since childhood (and in past south-central Asia, within an imaginary triangle with vertices in Tibet, central China, and Thailand. Here well try to wean the people from

153

the teachings of Buddha, to be replaced by those of, say, Nestorius, the fifth-century Christian heretic. No doubt we could pick up a collection of followers, human nature being what it is, but were not going to Texas and introduce Taoism.

change the essential character of those cultures. Finally, lets go to west A central fact of religion today is that people typically believe in

theirs because of geographical exclusivity and not because they know it course, that these religions dont have a lasting spiritual message, like I said, but only that theyre not initially adopted on that account. Had we worshipping trees or lightning bolts from heaven.

to be truer or more beneficial than other religions. This doesnt mean, of

been born on the banks of the Zambezi River, no doubt wed all be animists, Certainly were free to turn our backs on the cultural heritage of

our families and friends and adopt entirely new identities in our new faith, yet who but the most courageous is willing to do such a thing? No, most of the worlds people will die with the same religion they

were born with. Thats because religion isnt just a matter of personal belief but an inherited cultural system that one critically examines only with the greatest of difficulty.

154

Some Anthropolological Considerations by looking at it from that angle for a moment, we may be able to get a clearer picture of what it is and what it isnt. What it isnt is a joyous celebration of peoples love of one another under a loving God, and we ought to ask why. Having read the founders promises, why religion today. have we settled for less? Perhaps thats the essential question confronting If we consider the evidenceand much of it is obviousa major Religion isnt just a cultural system, as were well aware. But

consequence of religion has been a separation of divergent peoples, not a unity. The Christian crusades to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims could hardly have been inspired by the parables of Jesus. Its generally accepted now as more a case of one culture striking out at another whose growing strength it feared. That these crusaders were makes Kierkegaards leap of faith seem sophomoric. Here the

able to call themselves Christians shows a mental sleight-of-hand that teachings of cultureself-preservation, the genetic commandmenttook precedence over the teachings of Christ. And today Muslims in growing

155

numbers are just as surely striking back.

themselves. A Europe free of Islam became a battleground for one Christian nation against another and rival sects within the same nation. The Catholics

As we know, Christians fought not only those of other religions, but among

and Protestants (Huguenots) in sixteenth-century France battled for decades. almost to this day. Is it true, as Nietzsche said, that Christ was the last strife on Christians. Even Gandhis charisma couldnt prevent bitter

The fighting between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland persisted Christian? But of course we cant place the entire burden for religious fighting between Hindus and Muslims, leading to a division of India into

separate states. And when the Muslims of East Pakistan rebelled against the Muslims of West Pakistan, yet another conflict began, bringing into being believers in Shinto who fought against Russia, China, and Korea before advancing on Pearl Harbor in 1941. a third nation, Bangladesh. And no one needs to be reminded of the devout

Discrimination, which is a kind of psychological violence, is found

But inter-religious violence is just the tip of a very chilly iceberg.

everywhere that two religions meet, and even exists within the same

religion. We know that in America, Catholics were kept out of national

politics and the presidency in particular for nearly two hundred years; in

156

Israel, African and Middle Eastern Jews claim to be discriminated against

by those of European descent, just to mention two examples. It seems that when measured against the apparently desperate need of cultures, and cultural groups within cultures, to prevail.

the ideas of love and peace of the worlds great teachers carry little weight

religion using the teachings to help them follow a spiritual path, it

How can we explain this? While we can find individuals of every

seems that far too many have learned a set of values and beliefs that have set them apart from others. The reason for this may either be pragmatic and culturally-based, as in the case of intra-Jewish discrimination, or As an example of the latter we can look to the words of Thomas

it may spring from some interpretation of the religious doctrine itself. Aquinas, who said that the Church is like the Ark of Noah, outside

which nobody can be saved. Such exclusivity, of which this is but one talking about. The specialness theme we find in so many religions

example, has helped to foster the very us and them thinking weve been may simply be ethnocentrism in flowing robes. Religion has too often domination over other peoples. If others cultural practices can be

evolved into a cultural mechanism for one people to exclude or extend brought into line with ones own, if their thinking can be changed, Yes, were back to biology again.

ones own culture seems safer, more secure. Ones gene pool is protected. We can see this mechanism at work at the very beginnings of our

157

nation. Take Plymouth Colony, for example, the small town that

perhaps all American small towns were initially patterned after. Were

taught in school that the Pilgrims came to the New World seeking religious freedom. But the fact is that when someone professed religious freedom shortly thereafter, one Roger Williams, he was promptly banished from Massachusetts. These Puritans, hoping to practice a purer Christianity than the Church of England with all its rituals and alleged corruptions, accused of being. And in the subsequent years of this new Eden, when

may have become just as dogmatic as the institutionalized Church was their territorial expansion provoked the hostilities of the Indians, these defiant fist and the smoking barrel of a rifle.

same puristswith some exceptionsturned not the other cheek but a One might be led to conclude, then, that people arent typically

Christians but cultural christians, not Buddhists but cultural

buddhists. Thus even among the plethora of religions existing today, we might find it difficult if not impossible to walk a spiritual path.

Religion as a Conservative Force

more liberally-clothed successor science, a conservative force. Some

Whatever the original intention of religion, it became, like its

religions, at least, were conceived to free the mind from ignorance and system as the will of God. Perhaps all religions today contain both elements. But in virtually every instance we can see the liberating spiritual teachings dwarfed by the self-centered prejudices of the

fear, while others were apparently developed to justify an unjust social

158

society. Virtually all religious revolutions, for all their liberating

fervor, have lapsed into social control mechanisms. The old clich that the true when applied to religion.

revolutionaries of today are the conservatives of tomorrow is perhaps just as What is conservatism? Im a conservative, if by this we mean

one who wants to preserve many of the traditional values that are being pushed aside by modernity: close interpersonal ties, close ties with the environment, a spiritually-based morality, true participation in government and other values which seem to be rapidly disappearing.

But the conservatism Im speaking about now is the tendency to rigidly always tries to delegitimize competing ideas. In the case of science,

maintain ones own beliefs and to discredit all others. A conservative force these ideas are illogical or irrational; for religion, they arise from ignorance or are tools of the Devil. In fighting off all challenges to its authority, the its the only one. claim is clearly put forth that this belief system is not just the best, but that One can find evidence, of course, that some religions dont operate

this way. Shinto in Japan, for example, has long coexisted with Buddhism with little or no apparent friction. But the Japanese have always been a homogeneous people, primarily because of geography, and didnt need to use this aboriginal religion to discredit competing cultural systems. We should note, though, that when external pressure was felt, Shinto took a

159

darker turn. It figured in the persecution of Christians in the early sixteenth century, when Spain increasingly controlled trade in the region and the there was the elevation of Shinto to state religion prior to and during Japanese port of Nagasaki was virtually run by the Jesuits. And of course World War Two. So when necessary, even a tolerant religion can be called into service on behalf of the culture. Today, Shinto is a benign system of veneration of nature spirits and ancestors; some of its sects even preach world peace and brotherhood. But if history repeats itself as we say, appropriated for whatever use deemed necessary. then when the Japanese are again pressed, Shinto may be ready to be This is whats so perplexing about religion. Its at once a path

to blessedness and a stony road to cultural arrogance. How does it

stray from the former to the latter? It seems to draw away from the

sacred teachings and become increasingly susceptible to manipulation by the society to serve that societys own ends. Were caught in the middle. Somewhere out there in the realm of consciousness there is bliss, while were here genuflecting to a cultural system that may not care if were saved or not, as long as were playing by its rules.

160

Gods Incarnations

even some confusion as to how much of God is actually in them. Jesus, for example, was called the son of God, or the son of Man, but the

Who are these prophets of God and whats their message? Theres

holy trinity concept formulated by later Christian theologians has him

God himself. Mohammed occupies a somewhat more modest position, being called a messenger. What about Moses? From what we read about him in Exodus, he appears to be man, but a man with a mission from God. Is there a difference between being divinely inspired and being divine?

attained buddhahood. Did he become a god? The literature says no but feet tall, we cant help but realize that his followers consider him divine. Millions pray to him daily!

Buddha was a man. He was a prince named Gautama Siddhartha until he

when we witness the huge statues of Buddha in Asia, some over a hundred

by General MacArthur to renounce his divinity in a national radio broadcast. So it seems that the precise status of these spiritual founders or figureheads is in doubt. From a universal point of view, that is. The moment we its devotees, vanish.

In Shinto, the emperor was divine until 1945, when he was compelled

submerse ourselves in a particular religion, most of our doubts, like those of

161

own religious founder is divine or the closest thing possible to it. Other founders are then objects of curiosity, derision, or indifference. Muslims, for example, believe that Mohammed descended from Abraham

Geographic circumstances generally impart the idea that ones

and that the Koran supersedes the Torah and the Gospels. In effect, it

conveniently antiquates both Judaism and Christianity by updating them. Being born in Riyadh or Baghdad means that one accepts this as truth. Nearly every religion has a way of belittling competing religions

ecumenism notwithstanding. What this process tends to do, of course, is to separate the believer from others of differing beliefs and place those others on a lesser, unenlightened level. It also prevents one from hearing which to discern a universal message with universal applicability.

the possible truths of other prophetsand maybe ones own as well from We dont seem to listen to one another speak. The fact is that

most cultures transmit a tradition which excludes what prophets other than its own have had to say. To broaden ones understanding may the human mind again, in its eternal quest for the one right way. be thought to bring confusion to an otherwise orderly belief. Theres

162

We saw evidences of this earlier in our striving for the correct connection of money to values, correct behavior as defined by law, correct thinking as contrasted with madness, even correct belief as defined by science. Weve boxed ourselves in by all these constricting ideas, and it has prevented us from opening our minds to other possibilities. No wonder romance,

narrow little crack in the wall that it is, gets all our attention while love, as a potential force of unlimited dimensions, languishes in the corner. And what our group is right and one must share that belief to fit in? The stupid genes, us beguiled from the get-go. makes us participate in this tribal type of thinkingthis narrow belief that thats what. Only theyre not so stupid, are they. No, not at all. Theyve had In the case of religion, then, the mind and society work together to raise

up one or more divine figures and reject the rest. Each culture is responsible for creating a kind of package of beliefs, at the same time rejecting other cultures packages. When you think about it, this isnt religion at all but politics, and politics is a divisive art. The apparent alternative is likewise inadequatea spiritual

dilettantism or worse, a society wandering from one divine hero to the next, hoping for a scrap of truth to fall from the golden table. Would it be within the realm of possibility to consider that even

the smallest leaf is one of Gods incarnationsso that the truth is not only talk for later.

within our religious heroes, but all around us? But well save this wild-eyed

163

Worship

theres no lack of worship. People all over the world are prostrating

If there are too few true followers of the teachings of the masters,

themselves to their creator. Everywhere one goes, one sees crucifixes, praying. Modernity notwithstanding, its a religious world we live in, and we can find evidence of it in all parts of the globe. The question break the sacred teachings on the other? Buddhists can be so unlike Buddha, it seems, and Christians so unlike Christ, yet both can be seen flocking to the temples and receiving their sacraments.

crescent moons, lotus blossoms. Soldiers on the battlefield can be found

is, how can people worship so resolutely on the one hand and so freely

teachings are minimized and the teacher becomes the object of worship.

A transformation occurs in the course of every religion whereby the

This ritualization takes the emphasis away from the practical teachings of

the foundershow to please God by treating others with compassionand shifts it toward a more selfish pursuit: worshipping in order to (hopefully) smooth ones path through life or save ones immortal soul. Worshipping life. Its certainly easier. And it makes the genes happy. Why? Because it shows that youre thinking of your own survival, not those strangers out there who may not even be part of your group (gene pool).

appears more effective in achieving these goals than living a compassionate

was reprimanded for burning a wooden statue of Buddha to warm himself. His reply was that people worship the image instead of following the teachings it represents; thats the death of Buddhaand a dead Buddha ought to be burned as firewood! Such a story seems to need no further comment.

Theres a story of the priest Tan-hsia during the Tang dynasty who

164

special place in our hearts for the prophet; it should be so. And we

Worship alone is little more than ritual. Certainly we can have a

may feel we need, as St Paul claimed, mediation in our attempts at a

union with God. Yet if were divorced from the essential teachings of

religion, we can find ourselves simply going through the motionsoften as a self-centered appeal for help or salvation. But as Gandhi said, the essence of religion is prayer without petition. Prayer might be seen as a means of

opening oneself to a higher truth, whereas petition is the humble demand of satisfaction of ones desires. If we look at worship today, or at any time in history, how much of it involves petition? The transformation of religion, then, from a spiritual path

stressing right and compassionate living to an institutionalized ritual

where one is encouraged to think about saving oneselfhow can we not appears to be so ineffectual in the face of the worlds great problems. Religion in the Modern World

help seeing biology lurking here?lets us better understand why religion

tried to do and live by a rational-legal code, letting science answer the were not only material beings. We need religion. Or more aptly, we need spiritual truths that can help guide us through the maze of life

Why cant we just abolish religion as the socialist states once

important questions and technology provide the security? Simply because

and help us appreciate the meaning of what we do. Science may satisfy

165

the intellect but it has yet to satisfy the soul. And technology may

promise material security and comfort but never the peace of mind that theres an entire range of non-material needs that require satisfaction if were to fulfill ourselves as human beings. Most of the worlds people are religious, as we know. Even our

inner security brings. So although we live in an apparently material world,

own society, for all its high-tech look, is deeply religious. More than

seventy-five percent claim to be Christian, with countless more worshipping in their own ways. Yet theres not only a vast spiritual hunger in the world, but a formidable array of seemingly insoluble social problems, from

poverty and war to environmental debasement. Religion ought to have more strenuously addressed these problems. And while we shouldnt in any way minimize the attempts, we really should realize that its success in solving fundamental human problems has not been forthcoming. Its a hallmark of our age that when an infusion of the spiritual

life into the materialism of modernity is needed, religion, the designated vehicle of spirituality, is unable to fulfill its role. But its not only in modern times that religion was unable to do what it was called upon to do. History itself is a chronicle of the inability of religionand other institutionsto bring peace and peace of mind to the world. In

practice, religion has just as often supported the genetic program in carrying out its blind will by providing a rationale (God on our side, destroy the infidels, etc.) for its self-seeking actions. The prophets teachings, that were rooted in the flesh but need

166

not be ruled by the flesh, have never become part of our cultural

practice. They remain frozen in folklore, told in fables and preached

in our halls of worship but not given their rightful place in our lives.

Everywhere we go there is genetic violence: the taking from the weak by the strong, the weak banding together to destroy the strong, weak fighting weak and strong fighting strong. But the violence of raw biology is not an inevitability. Our spiritual teachers have lent us

counsel that would overcome its myopic passion. Not by denying it,

which is impossible, but by channeling its energy. What religion has

done, in its accommodation to the world, is not only to stand by while biological energy is being indiscriminately unleashed, but to sanction the Crusaders, and all their modern manifestations. its conquests: the sword of Mohammed, the ark of Moses, the cross of Now, with science supplanting religion as the primary source of

authority and activity in the modern nationsand nearly every nation is struggling to modernizereligion is losing even more credibility.

Many seekers have abandoned it altogether in their quest for the truth. It will endure, somehow, because among the myths and promises, theres something there that were looking for. But religion as we experience it

today, without the vitality of spiritual truths emanating from it, can be little more than another ineffective institution leading us down a barren path.

167

Loving Thy Neighbor

clear that we need to find ways to minimize our differences. Religion in fact may be having precisely the opposite effectin many cases it

The world is growing smaller and the perils are growing larger. Its

ends up classifying people as either us or them and then magnifies

the distinction. When we examine the conflicts in the world today, how

many are caused or abetted by religion? We all know the answer to that. requirement for love, then religion doesnt even take us this far. Its If finding a common ground were to be considered the minimum

in part religions apparent hypocrisy in preaching love on the one hand

and often frustrating its realization on the other that has impelled us to seek so than those embraced by many of todays faiths. And Eros can

love in places like romance. Eros may be a fickle god but certainly no more do what others cantbring people of even different beliefs together. Thus the cult of sexuality has grown very strong in America in modern times. many entries you findthen do the same with Paris Hilton. If you doubt that, just google Gandhi or Mother Teresa and note how Lets not stumble into misjudgment here. Wed be remiss if we

168

didnt acknowledge the immense spiritual achievements of the worlds religions, and the great efforts countless believers have made and are making today toward peace and human understanding. We owe them a debt world would be an altogether different place. Yet weve been kept waiting

beyond measure. If religion as a whole would follow from that example, the for an awfully long time. Time is growing shorthow much longer can we

wait? It may be that love alonenot logic, technology, politics or religion is the force that stands between us and calamity. If religion cannot, will not, rise to the occasion, well have to continue our search elsewhere.

169

Love and Civilization

CHAPTER NINE

The Birth of Civilization

potential obstacles in the path to our understanding of love. Well close Part II with a last look at the broad strokes of thought that

We come to the final chapter in our examination of some of the

presumably reflect our cultures highest ideals but in fact may more nearly be expressions of the genetic drive writ large. Somewhat immodestly, well take on our civilization itself in this last round, it being a composite pugnacious) gaze for the last five chapters.

of all the institutions that have been under our discerning (and admittedly Lets imagine a plain in Mesopotamia fifteen thousand years ago.

A small group of short, intense hominids are hunting a wild

donkey-like creature. The sun is hot and theyre tired; they cant

catch it. Its too fast for them. Suddenly two dogs join in the chase.

Theyre swift, much swifter than the primordial ass, and soon it tires. The anthropoid creatures are able to close in, grunting to one another in their triumph. Their sticks keep the dogs away as they make their

170

kill. The thick-shouldered men begin the long trek home, the dogs the camp, the men and their families eat their fill. For sport, they dogs linger; gradually, over time, a comfortable habit is formed.

a cautious distance behind, drawn by the smell of fresh blood. Back at toss the bones to the dogs. After all, it was their triumph, too. The

Fifteen millennia later, in cave dwellings near Kirkuk, Iraq, evidence is push from the womb, but one little piece like this at a time.

found of dogs being kept as companions. Civilization is bornnot in one We can imagine other scenarios where some aspect of culture

developed, whether in the Great Rift Valley of Africa, the Indus River Valley of Asia, or other place of archeological importance. In each instance, some specialization arose, some quirky habit that was

eventually mimicked by everyone. Its said that the kiss originated

from mothers chewing food and transferring it to their babies mouths. Now were all kissing. And that the handshake was a mechanism for showing a stranger that one wielded no weapon and thus meant no

harm. Just as in the case of keeping dogs, what we do today is often far or prehistoric times.

removed in both function and meaning from the original practice in historic It seems clear that the first rudimentary cultural practices were

based on utility. Certainly wild dogs werent allowed near the camp

unless they were useful in some way. Their usefulness brought them

171

into a closer relationship with people, and from this relationship a

tentative friendliness emerged. The functions of fire, clothing, tools,

shelter, and pets were practical long before they assumed any symbolic

importance for us. Though we might say that the emergence of civilization objects and practices took on symbolic meaning, they were merely useful cultural artifacts. Animals have culture, of a sort. There are definable social

coincides with the employment of symbolism, its fairly certain that before

patterns in the animal world, from the automaton-like behavior of ants

to the gregariousness of the baboon troop. Communication systems are

used; simple, like the warning bark of the prairie dog, and sophisticated, l

ike the complex sonar signals of cetaceans. Moreover, animals build shelters,

often of more intricate design than those of peoplecompare the bowerbirds

mating arbor with a Masai hut, for example. And some animals can use simple

toolsthe chimpanzee puts a stick into an anthill and pulls it out covered with of fish, and so on. So animals, like people, might be said to have culture. But more things because of the symbolism that could be attached to them. And although Lorenz, as we noted in Chapter One, provides some very strong evidence of symbolic behavior in animals, by and large its hardly on a broad scale as it is in human behavior. Were simply better at it. Why is it that animals are concerned with utility while humans

a delectable snack; dolphins use a circular curtain of bubbles to corral a school somewhere in history there was a parting of ways. People began to do more and

become so wrapped up in symbolism? Animals were content to live in

caves, while people had to paint the walls, so to speak. We can look once

172

again to the neocortex for the answer, that brain-on-top-of-a-brain where luxury of greater symbolism and thus, civilization. Lets look into this a little.

ideas are generated. This more complex neurological tissue permits us the

The Function of Civilization

have we directed its power? That is, what separates human civilization from animal culture? These questions are probably as old as the human mind.

If the higher brain is the fait accompli of biology, to what purpose

them for adornment. In other words, we wanted to improve on the

We first wore clothes for protection and warmth but later used

original. Animals, on the other hand, appear quite satisfied to look as they do. Put a gilded saddle on a wild horse or a diamond-studded collar on a cat and what do they do? Parade around with their heads

173

held high or rebel against the imposition of something foreign to their natures? Animals eat with their mouths or paws, while most people use

utensils of one sort or another. Not because they have to, but because its more polite. Less food touches the hands and lips. Even in cases close to the T-bone or drinking directly from the soup bowl, were might say theyre acting like animals.

where its more efficient to use primitive means, such as in eating the meat discouraged from doing so. When we see children or savages doing it, we Animals have coitus in public. Tsk tsk. They have no shame. Anyone

who hasnt experienced a dog grabbing his or her leg and trying to copulate hasnt lived, I suppose. But people are different. We cover our bodies, and we slip off into the darkness to mate. For some, even a kiss isnt for the acting like an animal.

publics eye. Sex is, after all, an animal act, and one doesnt want to be seen Apparently our highly-developed brain has not only given us the

capacity for ideas and symbolism, which animals have to a lesser

degree or not at alldepending on who you talk tobut has also an inner mirror in which to see ourselves. What is it that we see?

given us a rather unwonted condition: self-consciousness. Were given Thats hard to say, because we seem to be surrounded by symbols

174

emblems evincing a more polished, less animal-like creature. When we

look in the inner mirror, might it frequently be the symbols we see reflected rather than our truer selves? The symbols seem shinier, more glamorous. has produced what we call civilization. Self-consciousness gives us a glimpse of a creature thats unsettlingly primitive. Our civilization, in part, seems to be a formal process of covering up, one by one, all the It may be that our self-consciousness as much as our intelligence

reminders of how mammalian we really are. Successfully hiding or even

forgetting our biological foundations produces some of the distinctive rituals of civilization, from shaving the face or legs to wearing deodorant or using mouthwash. Ask any woman whos tried to breast-feed in public how welcome this (animal-like) practice is! Were not animals! we may as Greek vases; we enjoy Wagner. We see beauty, we experience profound

well exclaim. More proof: we read Boswells Life of Johnson; we admire feelings, evidence tangible of our higher natures. Of course this reverie is interrupted as soon as we belch, stub a toe or go for a roll in the hay, at share with the animal world. which time were compelled to acknowledge the fundamental biology we While we shouldnt jump to any unwarranted conclusions, its

conceivable that this reaction to self-consciousness may partially explain the pervasiveness, the sheer tenacity, of civilization.

Some Unintended Consequences of Civilization

self-sealing enamel, what are some of the things that happen to people? Here we can only speculatetheres no control group against which

As civilization is applied layer after layer like coats of

175

to compare! But speculations do have value if they provide some insight that an unproblematic attitude would not. We might start by noting that animals have abilities often exceeding

our own. Their sensory capacities, especially, are more developed than ours. Millennia of trying to civilize ourselves has admittedly dampened our senses. Our hearing is no match for a dogs and our sight no match for that of a fox. And consider the unpretentious moth, which can smell a mate a thousand or more yards away. The reader might note how our own senses a contributing factor as well, as it has allowed us to extend our range of

have been dulled through eons of disuse. We could point to technology as control even as our sensibilities weakened. Weve used everything from the jawbone of an ass to the silicon chip and have to face the consequences of doing so. And while we may not want to smell a person of the opposite sex a thousand yards awaythankfullywe ought to consider the implications of any form of debilitation, as it may bear directly on our survival. It may not because of his mastery of technology but in reality, when the curtain was pulled backwell, you get the picture. We also ought to consider again that the struggle to overcome be all that healthy for us to become like the Wizard of Oz, appearing mighty

Nature thats the hallmark of our civilization also results in a kind of

isolation. Unlike less civilized peoples, we may not really feel that were an Weve noted how primitive religion provides beliefs and rituals perpetually reconnecting people with the forces of Nature. We ourselves find little

integral part of the world. Alienation is one of the key features of modernity.

176

comfort in Nature. Our forays into the wilderness are almost technologies that will help us make Nature less alien, more

always accompanied by the trappings of our city lives: urban comfortable. Go to any ski shop or camping store to see exactly what I mean. And the ultimate aim of our civilizationthe complete control of Our benign term for it is development. By development we mean the Natureis more than just a passing fad; its at the heart of our way of life. complete subjection of Nature to human control. But as more and more of us are beginning to realize, and none too soon, this may be a Faustian bargain. Nature, is a separation from our selves. The farther we go along this path to becomesoon it may be difficult to determine what the real self is. The logical conclusion of a breach with Nature, since were a part of

by adding layer upon layer of civilization, the more artificial were likely Today weve become so many selves, each designed to satisfy a certain

constituency. I mentioned this in an earlier chapter. Do we know which self is really ours? Or have we become a little of all of them? The search for

177

self is so much a part of modern literature and popular culture that wed be right in concluding that its one of the major themes of our time. t know ourselves very well, we

certainly cant know one another. Thats clear enough. Much of another layers of civilization. After the stone has become polished, its difficult reflected off the facets.

persons personality may be nothing more than the emphasis of particular to know what the original stone was like. All we can see now is the light Our contemporary isolation, so well documented in literature and

film, not only hinders us from knowing each other on a personal level

but intensifies differences among cultures as well. Civilization should have brought an end to war but it hasnt. Its propensity to separate has increased tensions in the world and taken us to the edge of the nuclear precipice and the terrorist abyss. Its defenders claim civilization is so destruction now than animal-like people living in caves ever were.

necessary to remove the animal from us, but were perhaps closer to Theres another consequence of civilization as we know it that ought

to concern us here. We deeply care about freedom but were obliged to adapt to all the hues and textures of what weve come to take for granted as our modern way of life in order to maintain any respect and credibility. Freedom is only freedom in conformity to that idealwhich can be, as I hope weve seen somewhat in preceding chapters, unmistakably restrictive (and, I think, quite unlike what the good and noble founders of our nation had in mind when they tried to create an environment that would free us so that we might have a better chance to fulfill ourselves!). And theres a political

178

aspect to this that one doesnt hear much about but I think truly deserves our consideration. What Im getting at is that sophisticated rationales have been concocted to justify who prevails over whom. Lets be realisticwere still living in a jungle of sorts, and dog-eat- dog appears to many people to be

the order of the day. Ive heard this countless times, I think for the first time from my own father. What seems to have happened, though, is that through the civilizing process concealing our animal connectionsthe dogs who are eating other dogs have devised plausible reasons for their doing so,

while the dogs who are being eaten are offered equally plausible reasons for accepting their fate. Injustice isnt ascribed to the ruthlessness of the clever or powerful acting as animalsbut to natural laws which anyone can

overcome if theyre smart enough or they try hard enough. This rationale for over the weak!), the haves over the have-nots, the lucky over the unlucky, is ingeniously woven into the cloth of civilization that we wear dailywere forbidden to go nakedso that we accept the way of the world as natural

the success of the aggressive over the non-aggressive (not necessarily the strong

and perhaps even just in its own way. Thus civilization hasnt brought us out of the jungle but has merely institutionalized the jungle. Anyone who thinks that our meritocracy isnt just another jungle is kidding themselves. Why, then, do we defend our civilization so vigorously? I know this

well because Ive done it myself. What do we get from it? Maybe one answer can be stated in a word: pride. Like Ozymandias in Shelleys

poem, we survey our mighty works and are proud. We stand in awe of

our civilizations achievements. Our accomplishments offer tangible proof

179

that were unquestionably superior. We may give animals a lot of credit for swinging from a trapeze, we know for certain that were far beyond that

their dexterity or keen senses but when we see our nearest relative in a cage humble creature. Monkeys may look like us, and some of us may even look like monkeys, but we know were in a different league altogether. Were civilized. But lets return to our essential question: does this lead us any closer to an understanding of love?

Civilization and Spirituality

weaponless and innocent in their slumber. By and by a pack of wolves on the hunt approaches. The dog awakens, sensing danger. He begins to bark, awakening the man, who is still half in his dream world and oblivious to their peril. Several interesting questions arise from this episode. Why is it that the dog awakened and not the man? How is sense danger. What does this mean?

Imagine if you will a man and a dog sleeping in the wilds,

the dog made aware of the wolves presence? We often say that animals can Recent research in seismology underscores the above mentioned

sensitivity of animals, in that they have been found to be able to anticipate earthquakes. By anticipate we mean they show signs of unusual behavior moments and even minutes before an earthquake occurs. Such sensibility

shouldnt surprise us, already knowing as we do, for example, that salmon

180

somehow find the place of their birth years later and birds easily locate winter feeding grounds thousands of miles away. Horses know when a thunderstorm is coming long before we do. Dogs left behind have been a sensing capacity thats simply phenomenal. Theyre able to know the unknown, a gift we have long sought. While the case for animals seems pretty clear, its more difficult

known to follow their masters across the continent. Animals appear to have

to assess human sensitivity, due to all the superstition and prejudice

surrounding the subject of human powers. Visions, faith healers, ESP and all that. We have every right to be skeptical. Theres some indication, though, that more primitive peoples do have great sensing capacity. Aborigines visitors will arrivewe have documentation of these things and more.

easily locating water in the desert, jungle tribes knowing beforehand when Primitives seem to be more in tune with the subtle forces around them.

And its interesting to note that this heightened sensitivity is often turned predicting thunderstorms or finding our way home without a map.

toward spiritual experience, an area potentially more significant to us than Lets train our impassive eye a bit, then, on tribal societies. They

live with Nature and their religious rituals constantly strengthen this

relationship. We say that in their childlike animism they live in a world

181

inhabited by spirits and unseen forces present all around them. Its naive for us to claim that they dont see these things, because they do. Their seeing is quite different from our own, as any traveler to the outback

knows. They live with Nature and are incredibly sensitive to her moods. What they can see, unconcealed by city lights or scientific training, is a hundredfold more subtle than what appears visible to our own jaded senses: a spiritual vision of the world. And among savages there is the supreme savagethe shamanwho is characteristically more primitive, more

animal-like, than his tribal brothers and sisters. His behavior is decidedly uncivilized, compared even to his fellows. His hair may be matted, his can see: his sensitivity is even greater than theirs. speech strange, his gestures eccentric, but the tribe relies on him for what he This leads us to at least consider the possibility that a more

primitive vision permits one to more fully perceive what we might bordering on blasphemy to others. But if we look closely at tribal societies, we can see it more clearly. By virtually all standards of

call the spiritual dimension of life. This may be obvious to some of us and

judgment, inhabitants of bush and forest are on the whole more spiritually attunedtheir language, customs, and rituals show itand the most primitive, the shaman, is typically the most spiritual of all.

too much credibility, is that civilization, our civilization, may reduce our capacity to perceive the spiritual dimension of reality. Lets look

What this suggests, if we can continue this tack without losing

at this a little. It seems that in every instance of less-civilized living,

182

whether in the Andes Mountains or in enclaves in modern urban society,

there is a strong spiritual sense among the people there. And even highly may get a glimpse of their own spirituality. The sea sometimes has this effect on people, and sailors, whether weekend yachters or merchant somehow become reconnected to themselves and the cosmos. mariners, usually cant wait to set foot on deck once more. Here they It may be, then, that our civilization, rather than providing paths

civilized individuals, when immersed in Nature or the solitude of a temple,

toward spiritual understanding, actually acts as an obstacleby reducing have to count love among things unseen.

our sensitivity and thus our ability to perceive the unseen. And of course we

Instinct and Brutality

imagine what our local constabularyhearing of the idea of encouraging people to rediscover their primal selvesthink about this subject. Arent there enough primitives out on the streets already?! Its around this point that civilization draws its greatest nourishment. It thrives on

Must we return to a state of Nature to find love? We can well

our fear of the uncivilizeda fear often justified by the brutality of

people when they begin to act like animals. War novels are among the sense is so fearful and unbecoming a behavior for human an opera box to symbolize the aspirations of humanity.

strongest purveyors of civilization, simply because bestiality in the broadest beings. Better that we should have a well-dressed executive sitting in By removing civilization, we run the risk of unleashing violence

and brutality. Remember those ruthless genes. Its not without reason that

183

we have repudiated Rousseaus idea of the noble savage and have instead accepted The Lord of the Flies as the real truth of Nature. The evidence seems stronger. This presents us with a definite problem, then, and one which no

amount of mental gymnastics is going to explain away. All life, because of the commandment for survival, has the capacity for violence. Even plantsweeds for examplewill choke the life out of other plants so that idealists jump off bridges and philosophers become drunks. Life has an

their own kind will prevail. This is what we live with every day. This is why inherent violence to it. Just to eat we have to kill living things. We may, like

vegetarians, attempt to minimize our role in this, but we can never eliminate Even our blood is filled with deadly leukocytes wholl not turn the other plan.

it altogether. Every step we take crushes benign creatures beneath our shoes. cheek. And dont I swat the mosquito on my arm? Were all killers in Gods Were also dreamers, so lets dream for a moment now. Were

looking at a human being. Lets take a guy on the thirty-fourth floor of and we begin to peel off layer after layer of his modern civilization. We take away his ties and tailored jackets, his tennis clothes and jogging shoes. His comb. His razor. His scotch, his aspirin. His

a downtown office building. We remove him from his urban surroundings

wallet. Then we remove his disarming smile, his interest in Pynchon and Mailer. Next go his wit and his carefully chosen words. His political creature. Not a creature with a Neanderthal intelligence, but a fully developed brain. One might suspect that two particular energies preferences. Well peel away each layer until theres nothing left but

184

would emergeif we were correct in our earlier assumptions. One,

a release of the genetic mandate, that self-serving instinct to stay alive

at all costs. The savage mind. But would we be surprised to discover an

equally strong instinct emerging there? One embracing a more unified vision of the cosmos? A spiritual awakening? Satori, Western- style? Were playing with heresy now. And even if we supposed that this were so, these two forcesthe

primal and the spiritualsurely ought to rage against one another for supremacy. After all, historically weve made an artificial distinction between them. Yet in the mind so carefully stripped of all traces of

sophistication, there may be no such distinction. No elegant Cartesian one keeping us alive, the other showing us our place in life.

duality to confuse and perplex. Imagine both forces working in tandem: Ah, dream on, philosophers and dancers. Reality will meet you

around the corner and its terror will lay to rest your every thought of removing civilization from the human species. It seems we need civilization more than we ever did, and no mythical state of cosmic

integration is going to have a strong enough pull to counteract our fear of the animal in us. A few intrepid souls studying Oriental philosophy maybe, who want to live as the bird in the forest and the fish in the waters, or a disaffected handful who have been cut by the sleek lines and sharp angles of modern life, but by and large the smell of police, for their company feels safer. fear is too strong in our nostrils. Today we will dine with the

185

Transcending Civilization

the less civilized mind. After all, weve long pursued the opposite

If the reader will bear with me, well yet linger on this idea of

course and found our problems unabated. We seem compelled to examine other possibilities, fearful or not, because of the failure of civilization to provide the answers for living that we need. But lets not rush to

the opposite extremesudden anarchybecause we dont need that, either. desensitizing influence of civilization without unleashing chaos?

Lets formulate the problem something like this: how can we reduce the

Again, lets look at so-called primitives today. As we know, their

sensory capacities are phenomenaland what do they typically sense? A

186

vast interconnected spiritual realm. This isnt to say that primitives are

necessarily more moralbut only that they have more nearly found their Many primitive peoples have not, as we well know.

place in the cosmos. Morality is the next stepfor those who will take it. A sensitivity which permits us to look into the deeper nature of

lifeto whatever degree were ablemay reveal interrelationships which provide a firmer basis for morality. That is, as individuals become more spiritually perceptive, theyll be able to become more moralif thats indeed their goal.

also be a path to morality! But lets be careful here. It should be

This is, of course, a paradox: that the path to animality might

obvious that morality doesnt arise automatically. Weve all seen

animality without the least trace of morality. Primitive life doesnt restrictions on sensitivity, through which one can experience the

necessarily bring moral behavior. But consider this: it places fewer relationship between ourselves and the spiritual dimension of lifeand a deeper understanding of priorities. That is, one might refrain from a

its from here that morality can emerge. Not as a set of rules, but simply particular behavior, not because the rules proscribe it, but because one

knows it to be wrong. One feels its wrongness because it doesnt fit in with what one knows of life. This may be a truer morality, and one with much

187

greater power, than learned social rules. As we know, there cant be a rule for everything; human life is too complex. Thus much of our behavior is unguided, haphazard, and we keep adding laws and restrictions to counteract this. But a morality sustained by inner knowledge is applicable to every act, whether theres a rule or not. Well look at this in more detail in Part III. because were looking for a corresponding increase in sensitivity, from which morality can flow. Not automatically, but intentionally, through Transcending civilization need not unbridle five billion stallions,

discipline. This is not a quixotic dream so much as pure pragmatism, for present tendencies have led us to followour tools of war and environmental despoliation are now too great. Maybe its better to look for the laws and conventions of civilized society, because the task before us is aplenty if we knew how to look for it. Civilization and Love deeper messages of the soul than to rely solely on our rationality-based

the simple reason that we really cant continue the course of destruction our

simply beyond their power. We need all the help we can get, and theres help

our modern civilization, may not be the path toward better knowing and

The reader is asked to consider the proposition that civilization,

188

fulfilling ourselves, but away from it. Our civilized world today shows us separations among all things. Its a material world with its own compelling logic and system of ethics, but its only a part of reality, not its entirety. If theres a spiritual dimension to life, a luminous kingdom of subtle connections and interdependencies which we in our realm and steep ourselves in its wisdom if were to love. Without

materialist conditioning can only catch glimpses of, we need to enter this knowledge of our deep ties to one another and to the world we live in, as it is, fills our minds and hearts with divisive images which seem

there can be no love. A material world alone, important and immediate impossible to overcome. Its a world of us and them, of people against Nature, where species, color, sex, religion, age, income, even taste, are reduced to symbols by which we perfunctorily judge one another. No wonder so much of what we call love is little more than sentimental romance.

each other and against the environment in which we live has reached

Were at a critical juncture in human history. Our fight against

lethal, possibly cataclysmic proportions. We desperately need to find the beckoning. A quiet, unglamorous voice. I hope we havent become too civilized to hear it.

way to understanding. But the door is always open, and a voice is always

189

PART III Introduction

the path leading toward a better understanding of love. Whether were

We saw in Part II that there are plenty of obstacles strewn along

considering such institutions as the law or larger conceptual worlds such

as the belief systems represented by science or religion, we often find less help than hindrance there. Romance thrives, but romance alone is simply the face of todays challenges. inadequate as a bridge between peopleand makes love seem unrealistic in Lately weve tried to solve our dilemma through modern civilization,

that persuasive madam with a new little piece for each of our mushrooming desires. There are even some of us still waiting for the Enlightenment promised over two centuries ago and given a hefty shove by Jefferson,

Madison and other titans of our Revolution. But lets be brave and face a

somber reality. Our civilization, as modern as it is, often seems little more than a complex web of rationales for whats really indefensible in human

190

behavior. Ignorance is given a cloak of respectability and truth must be chained in the backyard to howl in the night. If this is our lot, reality as it is, why do we hold onto it so

tenaciously? Do we fear the danger, the adventure of a new world? here. Its about a neighborhood just moments after a tornado had swept through it; some poor, forsaken man was seen on his front

Theres a story from the anthropology literature that might be useful

porch sweeping off the steps, his house a pile of rubble behind him.

instantaneously, in spite of obvious evidence calling for the contrary.

Strange? Not really. Clearly, mental attitudes just dont change

Adjustment takes time. And while this is an extreme example, theres a socialbecause the mind needs time to adapt.

general principle here. Well cling to even a crumbling edificematerial or Maybe its like this with our stubborn attachment to our world, the world

of alluring cars and buildings and even more alluring personalities, which we cling tightly to in spite of growing evidence that somethings wrong.

191

We just cant give it up. And how can we, like the porch sweeper after

the tornado, with nothing to take its place? But there is something. Were simply dissuaded from seeking it out. Dissuaded from even the luxury of believing, remember? figuring out what it is. Our materialist philosophy has seen to that. Seeing is In spite of this, somehow we have to gain understanding. About our culture,

for sure, but more importantly, about the ways biology has shaped our culture. And understanding may be able to show us how we can more successfully live with our biological heritage and hopefully even delight in it. And our combined wisdom, that is, putting our heads and our hearts together, may be able to help us overcome the waywardness of the genesthat we may become the leaders of the blind instead of the followers. Then, and only then, will love find a way. Is it possible to reach an understanding, a higher wisdom than

our culture is ready to admit but increasingly demands? And so begin of the paths to that end. If there are hints of a grand scheme here, a

the long journey home? This section, Part III, sets out to explore some joyous cosmology, these are probably the irrepressible dreams of the

writer. But its each persons task, and responsibility, to seek the way. Let but not without each of us doing something to bring it about.

me emphasize the word responsibility. There may be a better world for us,

192

193

CHAPTER TEN Love and Altruism

Setting the Stage

the genes, altruism. If the genetic plan for survival is self-serving, one can

Well begin our great adventure with a look at that apparent nemesis of

194

imagine the trouble caused by selflessness. But if were to speak of love, we have to consider that selflessness plays a part. Yet if we accept that in life the genes are to have their way, how can it? Lets suppose that three people have been marooned in a lifeboat;

two men and a woman. The boat is badly damaged and will soon capsize unless one goes overboard into the shark-swollen waters. All three are over the side? young, and the two men are rivals for the love of the woman. Who will go You might guess, with reason, that the woman wont. Women in nearly

all culturesand ours is no exceptionlearn to expect that men should perform the chivalrous deeds, especially those requiring great physical

courage. And what greater opportunity for them to show it than now, when theyre both competing for her affection. Yet neither of the men wants to sacrifice himself. Only a fool would surrender himself so that a rival could claim his loved one. Are there other options? Surely the woman wouldnt throw the other over the side in front of the woman. Here we have the makings of a true dilemma! choose one of them and condemn the other. Nor could one man very well

in its favor. It may seem unnatural to us to sacrifice our advantage when all of life seems to be a struggle to gain it. Were taught, of rather trivial advice when were really put to the test. After all,

Altruism appears to have a lot working against it and very little

course, to be generous from time to time when we can, but this seems giving is fine but not all the time and certainly not with the ultimate

gift. So were unprepared when faced with a situation where we may

be called upon to giveand generously. We need the wisdom of Solomon

195

here to guide us.

before Solomon with a child, asking for his judgment about who it should belong to. It seems that both women lived in the same house and both had newborn babies. One of the babies died in the

Im thinking in particular of the story of two women who came

night, and according to one of the women, its mother surreptitiously baby. Solomon, being very discerning, called for a sword to be

switched babies. Now both stood before Solomon claiming the living brought to him. He commanded that the living child be cut in two, and a half given to each woman. At that point one woman begged him to stop, that he might give the child to the other woman. Solomon thus perceived that she was the real mother and awarded her the child.

clear and simple instinct on the part of the woman. The childs well-

I like this story. Not so much for the cleverness of it but for the

being was her first consideration. There was no need to deliberate, no

need for soul-searching. We may say this is maternal instinct but mothers

196

arent the only ones who possess ittheyre often just the most

conspicuous examples. Deep within us there seems to be the capacity to think of others, even at great personal expense. Thats not to say that we often exercise this capacity, nor are there constant life-

threatening circumstances to test ourselves withjust the low-key day-tooccasionally were called upon to make some sacrifice, usually small, and more often! And why dont we? Because were biological beings who competition, weve elevated it to a heavenly commandment.

day decisions that seem not to bring out the best in us but the mediocre. But were surprised how willingly we do it. If only we could tap into this source are in constant competitionand in America, instead of moderating this Theres another story that seems to stick in my mind, this time

not from biblical literature but a television drama I saw when I was a kid. There was a black soldier at an army training campplayed by Sammy Davis, Jrwho was the butt of all the mens jokes. They made him the

coffee sergeant, a ruse to get him to bring them coffee. Simple as he was, he was flattered. One day they contrived a cruel trick: one of the men got a dummy hand grenade, used for training purposes. All the men in the squad were told it was a dud but the black man. They would scare the daylights out of him! Someone pitched it on the ground in their flee. He threw himself on top of it and cried to them, Run guys, this dumb guy was bigger than any of them. Ill never forget the looks on their faces. The realization that he loved them. midst shouting, Look out! A live grenade! But the black man didnt run! The men just stood there, suddenly struck by the knowledge that

stories are but isolated examples of a kind of effete emotion that tugs at the heart

Theres a danger here of becoming sentimentalthe urge to say: such

197

in some of us, making good copy for magazine articles but having little

applicability to the world at large. In trivializing it so, weve made our lack

of it easier to bear. But the fact is that within the human breast lies this same altruistic impulsein all of us. Granted, its hidden deeply. In some of us it never shows at all. But on occasion, at those times when theres no chance to think, when instinct alone guides our actions, it may appear suddenly. smothered in our cultures platitudes about looking out for oneself.

At other times, when theres ample time for rational deliberation, its often What about the three people in the lifeboat? Well, my guess is

that the two men would draw straws to see which one had to go over

the side. Thus chance replaces moral courage as the guiding handand

humanity remains adrift, trusting blind fate more than its ability to guide its own destiny. But maybe, in the crisis, something will rush from the heart other two, deeper yet than love of man or woman, knowing exactly what to do when the conscious mind is still floundering. For a brief moment humanity is saved. What is Altruism? of one of the three like a wave of pure light, born out of a deep love of the

seem to be something learned. No matter how many times you teach a child to share his candy, you have to tell him again because he still wants it for himself. Forced generosity isnt generosity at all; its a learned response known to bring a social reward. Altruism is generosity given with no expectation of a reward.

What is it that were looking for when we talk about altruism? It doesnt

If altruism isnt learned, do we dare say that its instinctual? Our

198

experience with instincts tells us just the opposite. Instincts have

always been associated with brutality. Weve been taught to subdue our animal passions as if they were all of the same character. Yet not all of them are aggressive, as anyone who has lived among simple peoples knows. Human beings have cooperative, loving instincts as selflessly without thinking, even when the price may be life itself. well. And weve noted above how ordinary people can sometimes act From this perspective, we could say that altruism may not be at odds

with the instincts, as we might have learned, but may be one of them.

whilewhat are its special qualities? St Augustine used the word caritas

If altruism is actually an instinctand lets run with that for a

which weve already mentionedmeaning charity in its broadest sense. He describes history as the conflict between two cities, which are two differing types of love. One is self-love, which we may be so venturesome as to identify with the genesthe acting out of our own self-seeking biological mandateand charity, or love of humanity, which is selfless and otherdirected: the great commandment, restated.

so much as channeling it in such a way that others as well as oneself are the beneficiaries of its life-giving force. Not denying it, but directing it

Altruism, or caritas, may not be the suppressing of ones genetic energy

outward. We have energy within us whose seed has been passed on from

199

one generation to the next for eons. Shall we then use it only for ourselves? What Augustine and many spiritual teachers far wiser have said is that we seems hard to do. should share of ourselves. This is a simple message but in practice, well, it

Altruism and Biology

freedom are removed, even if selectively. If instincts can be both bad and good, whats to prevent the bad ones from prevailing? Weve all been hurt enough by others lack of self-control to be skeptical of any a few more chains.

Theres always a fear of chaos when restrictions on human

half-baked plan to unchain the human being. Many of us would even prefer From a purely selfish perspective, the genetic plan is for my

survival. The genes are blind to my neighbors needs. If my neighbors cant be enlisted in aiding my survival, theyre of no use as far as the genes are concerned. But consider this: my instinct for altruism, on

the other hand, may reveal my needs and my neighbors needs inextricably good and evil raging within us? I dont think so. In the first place, the

bound together. Is there a conflict here? Is this the Calvinistic battle between

200

genetic mandate is anything but evil. It gives us life and the energy (not to mention the desire) to maintain life. Without this genetic information in every cell in our bodies, we couldnt live. This in itself cannot possibly potential for evil if the person doesnt know how to use this energy. for helping our neighbor survive, so that the life force is put to use

be considered evil except by the most jaded misanthrope. Theres only the What about coordinating the instinct for survival and the instinct

for the larger purpose of our collective survival? Because we have to the group. Technology and population growth have eliminated the

concede that today theres no personal survival without the survival of possibility of Walden Ponds where individuals might serve only their

the life energy outward to others is not only desirable but perhaps ultimately necessary. If were able to develop our spiritual selvesinstinctuallyand

own interests and remain unaffected by society at large. So a directing of

become aware of our interdependence, maybe we can hope to use the force of the genetic program constructively. We can try to help each other. Perhaps this is the distinguishing mark of human beings: the capacity to

see the spiritual dimension of reality and to use this knowledge to direct

our energies for the good of all. This may be our great gift, and it is this, humans.

rather than our ability to speak or make symbols, that may characterize us as

201

Giving in a Taking World

If we dont protect ourselves, the wolves at the door will soon be

We would like to give more, but it just doesnt seem practical.

all over us. If we gave just a few cents to each poor person, wed soon today. This fact is like a great stone blocking our path.

be poor ourselves. Life seems to favor the takers, not the givers, especially Its difficult to be compassionate when the world seems so full of

trouble. Even Augustine himself resorted to force when the churches in

North Africa (the Donatists) differed with the Roman Church. When push cant be taken to the limit is in some respects wanting, because its be taken?

came to shove, his caritas went right out the window. A philosophy which principles might fail you when it really counts. Just how far can love Jesus was a quintessential lover. He tried to give everything, all

the time. Of course, even he had his limits. He often fled from the clamoring crowds and even taught from boats in order to distance

202

himself from their ravenous hunger. The climax came with a strikingly bold plan: his final entry into Jerusalem, the power center of the local could finally give all. Roman administration and the Jewish priesthood. By going to Jerusalem, he Theres a Buddhist story of Prince Mahanama, who believed in the

teachings deeply. His people were conquered by a warring king, who intended to kill them. Mahanama went to him and proposed that the

king would let as many of the people escape as could get away while Mahanama himself remained underwater in a nearby pond. The king granted his wish, figuring that he couldnt stay under for very long. The castle gate was opened, and as Mahanama dived into the water the people ran for safety. Mahanama never came up. He had tied his hair to the underwater root of a willow tree.

altruisms extreme is self-surrender. We see this when a parent

This is disturbing, to say the least, because it implies that

sacrifices his or her life for a child or a soldier does the same for a buddy. It doesnt seem to be a desirable prospect for creatures whose goal is to stay alive. But this isnt to say that every altruistic person has to die for his or her beliefs; only that when pushed to the extreme, the possibility is there. Perhaps the key to this entire problem

203

is that in these extreme cases the stigma of the failure of a biological

being is replaced by the success of a spiritual one. Thus even dying can be seen in its larger meaning. In this greater vision, theres the possibility that everywhere. To love freely, and without fear. fear can be eliminatedeven fear of death. This may be the dream of lovers Gandhi believed that we need not fear others because by loving

them, their desire to hurt us can be reduced or removed altogether.

This is what lies behind his principle of non-violence. When love is

expressed, something inside even the worst of people eventually responds; they cant help but be changed inside. They become aware of their own brutality. Or indifference. Gandhi based his life on this principle, and the miracle was that slowly, over time and not without pain or setbacks, it worked. In the end he died for his love, just as Jesus and

Mahanama did. But we all die sooner or later. In their cases, their lives and their deaths were meaningfuland beneficial. Will we be able to say the same about ours?

Other Kinds of Love

romance isnt love at all but the idealization of genetically-inspired

Weve already said, probably more times than necessary, that

pair-bonding. The mood of a few drinks and Rodrigos Concierto de

Aranjuez may be the farthest thing from love there is, short of murder;

for both are hungry impulses seeking selfish fulfillment. In the former, the

204

heartstrings are plucked in unison with the guitarthis gives us added

motivationbut the source may be a point along the same blind continuum. romance. Weve already mentioned the maternal instinct. The question is: when parents sacrifice for their children, is it altruism? First we ought to range? It seems to me that a deeper spiritual understanding of life consider whether altruism can be so exclusive, or must it encompass a wider precludes singling out certain people as being special and more deserving of love than others. Compassion may know no such divisions. All people ought to be special at the ultimate level of human understanding. Particular concessions made for ones family and denied others thus seem to be more genetic than spiritual in nature; that is, ones own line is held in greater Lets consider parental love as a more substantial competitor than

esteem. One hesitates to say it but this may indicate an expedient selfishness more than altruism. The parents who break their backs working for their childrens future may not be compassionate as much as self-serving: pride is self-centered, nor that it cant be altruistic; it simply means that it isnt altruistic per se. It seems that the acid test for altruism, then, is the breadth

plays a central role here. This doesnt mean, of course, that all parental love

205

to which its generalized. Almost anyone can feed and clothe his or her

child and thus increase its chances for survival, but will they help feed and clothe their neighbors child? The first is rooted in biology and the second transcends biology. How about love of ones spouse? Is this biological or transcendent

behavior? Madame de Stals wry comment that love is self-love

deux must be seriously considered. And since ones mate is essential to ones reproductive and social plan, altruism here may be more a matter building makes possible a selfish motive in anything we do for them. of expedience than charity. Their participation in procreation and nestWhat I do for him or her, I do for us. I get a return on my investment.

Such behavior cant be considered selfless. But come on, lets not be too

contentious. Neither parental nor spousal love are entirely selfish. The fact that theyre genetically based doesnt preclude something more. We might say that both are a transfer of love to arepresentative or ally of the self.

As such, each is a tentative first step away from purely selfish behavior. But to love.

maybe we have to wean ourselves from the self a bit more if we truly want Following this tack, lets consider love of country. Patriotism

206

often appears to be one of the strongest forms of love, inspiring

great passion and deeds of self-sacrifice. History is filled with moving

stories of the heights to which humans have strived for love of country,

and some of our greatest heroes are the protagonists of such dramas. But

insofar as ones country provides a basis for ones identityIm English; wavers identify with the country, then praise its virtues. In a manner of

Im Frenchit really ought to be considered an extension of the self. Flagspeaking, this is very close to narcissism. But lets not be too harsh here. It has to be said that at least patriotism is an extension outward, and can be another step in the gradual weaning process.

is provincial because humanity, too, is just an extension of the self.

There are those who would then argue that love of humanity itself

This is true. Any concept favoring reverence for human life over all else

clearly strengthens ones own position. Altruism, to be thought of as truly

selfless, would then seem to be love even for things for which we have no chapter but for now lets assume only that altruism may be boundless and

obvious affinity: plants, rivers, deer. Well talk more about this in the next that its not a static phenomenon but a process of continually extending the lovers but only ones striving for perfection. Looking at it in this way, the is capable of striving.

perimeter encircling what one is able to love. Thus there may be no perfect goal isnt unattainable at all but in fact is within everyones reach. Everyone

207

Some Consequences of Altruism

the personal, the social, and the environmental.

We can look at the results of altruism from several perspectives:

conscience. The simplicity of this almost makes it seem not worth

The most profound and direct personal consequence is a clear

mentioning. But peace of mind, gotten in part by doing what one knows to be right, is one of those intangibles in life we cant put a price on. And it conventions and enjoying the comfort that might bringthough as Ive may be far greater than simply feeling good about having followed social alluded to before, simply fitting in and following ones expected role can Its all well and good to be a member in good standing but when you

be accompanied by unanticipated feelings of loneliness or even alienation. get right down to it, is the pat on the back one feels from doing this really

that satisfying, deep down? I dont find that it is and I wonder if you dont, knowing what the right thing is and doing it. This is altruisms great gift to us.

either. No, I think the deeper fulfillment that we seek is to be had more from

to contribute to a healthier, less fearful society. Love extended into a social setting does something to people. If its projected strongly enough, who knows how theyll respond? They may not show it, but inwardly and

On a broader social level, theres the ever-present hope of being able

here lets not be naive but base our claim on actual experiencea chord

just may be being struck. Few are immune if its projected consistently and Gandhi in daily life, call it.

with sufficient power. Many of us are fortunate enough to have seen it work.

208

role models for our children. If through our actions we teach them only to take care of themselves, we cant expect the world to be any better for them than it is for us now. And although it sometimes seems that they have minds of their own and have little use for our opinions, the fact is that they watch us like hungry urchins, hoping for any morsel of practical food that will help them negotiate this difficult and complex life. They may be indifferent to our exhortations but theyre attentive to our behavior. We are, after all, in the big leagues, and they know

Also on the social front, we have the obligation to provide good

theyre going to join us there sooner or later. Can we show them actions

that will give them direction while at the same time enriching their lives and the lives of those around them? Theyre looking for something to believe in. What more precious gift can we give them? A society needs hope. Its people need to know that theyre part of

something fine and that their future will be free from unnecessary fear and doubt. We dont live in such a society now. No period of

209

history is without its troubles, of course, nor should we expect it to be.

Can we quote Zorba the Greek here and say that life is trouble? But trouble and spiritual tools to cope with trouble that we have to worry. And that

itself isnt a cause for dismay. Its only when we have inadequate intellectual seems to characterize our situation today. We need the hope that collectively we can deal with the issues confronting us and resolve them in a just and peaceful way. Love wont suddenly change the world but its presence another. This is the fountain from which a better life for us all can flow. healthier conditions for living. The imbalance created by our taking On an environmental level, selfless behavior will be reflected in

can begin in many small ways to change people and their ideas about one

from the environment while giving little in return has upset the natural

economy of the ecosystem. Our wish to dominate rather than maintain a

partnership with the world may be as old as civilized homo sapiens but has gained momentum with the modern age. We seem unable to stop this the worlds resources and carelessly casting out the wastes. Theres little care for Nature here, and in its place a naive hope that technology will somehow rescue us. But there is no technological solution. Change must come from within us. speeding train, maybe because of the tremendous profitability of exploiting

woodland, every meadow, every sea? I dont think so. We love the

Do we dislike the world so much that were destroying every

beauty of Naturethe ocean, the forest, the deer, the tiger, the salmon.

Theres no question about that. We simply dont know how to translate this

210

feeling into action when our other mandatethe relentless genetic extension of the selfhas through the last several centuries established a seemingly Here again our civilization has taken its toll. But if we begin to block out some of the noise of that civilization and become more sensitized to the with it maybe even new regard for the world we live in. anti-Nature culture that we have to cooperate with if were to earn a living.

quieter voices, the instinct for love may have a better chance to grow. And Altruism, then, as a real and positive force in the world, can have

appreciable consequencesonly the barest of outlines of which have been suggested here. And these consequences can be much more profound than we realize. Lets not look at it as a lifeboat where someone has to jump in the waterthats the exception, for exceptional circumstancesbut as a sturdier lifeboat where more and more people can be saved, if only the people in the boat would extend their hands to those around them.

back if they come our way. This is what life is. A lot of work, plenty of ups and

Were not expecting miracles, although we certainly wont turn them

211

downsand a few miracles to lighten our load.

Is Love a Sign of Weakness?

others, that people who are kind are weak. Compassion is seen as a be compassionate, and indeed, truly kind people often seem to be

Its a common assumption in our culture, although not in some

substitute for mastery. Those capable of achievement dont need to concentrated at the lower end of the social spectrum, whether this is in the office, the sports team or the country club. When youve been around as long as I have, you dont need to read this in a bookyouve seen it for this?

yourself. Nice guys finish last, we say. Altruism has a bad name. Why is We could be cynical like Nietzsche and say that there is no

selfless behaviorhe suggested that every action is calculated in some

way to serve the individual. If a person has no power, he or she can create a sense of obligation in others through ostensibly self-sacrificing actions. In fact, this does happen. Parents, for example, losing their hold on their

children, may emphasize their status as givers to maintain control. Look at all Ive done for you is actually a battle cry. The same can be true of selfsacrificing teachers, neighbors, spouses. In Nietzsches world, those who cant attain a measure of power become cunning givers, it seems.

You might say, then, that they get their way by being nice, just as others

We often defer to nice people simply because theyve been kind to us.

212

get their way by being powerful or wealthy. Altruism then looks like a manipulative tool of the weak to get what they want. In far too many instances, this is the unfortunate truth.

To see this we have to rise above cynicism and try to discriminate

But compassion need not always be a compensation for weakness.

between genuine love and love which is given with the expectation, even the calculation, of a return. Above all, we must recognize the difference in our own behavior. To say we always do good only to get what we want

is to condemn the human race to an eternally animal-like existence, living

only for ourselves. This is too heavy a weight; the truth may be lighter. We are times, we must admit, that weve acted selflessly, in spite of ourselves. Altruism can certainly serve the genesalthough in that case it isnt certainly flow from spiritual understanding. altruism but selfishness dressed up in altruistic clothesbut it can just as I think this is what Nietzsche may have failed to appreciate,

do use love, or any other device, to lubricate our path through life, but there

even though his prodigious insight into the darker side of the human character has helped us understand the masks that many of us wear when we love. But its far too great a generalization to say that all

goodness is subterfuge created because of ones lack of power. Cynicism has two colossal faultsit sees all through the same glass darkly, and it dwells too much on present conditions and fails to see the potential for change that lies within the human heart. Thus there can be selfless

behaviortrue moralityregardless of the number of people who are only

213

feigning such behavior in order to manipulate people and events in their favor. And even among the latter group theres potential for change. No one really knows the heart of another and how it may be longing for a truer it from happening. The modern mind may have lost sight of the

expression of love. The cynic cant see this possibility and so helps prevent fact that it takes faith as well as intelligence to create a better life.

In a taking world, it may require more courage to love than to simply be like everyone else. To follow ones inner voice when the noise of the world seems to contradict it at every turn takes strength and a

We return to the original question: is love a sign of weakness?

sense of the rightness of what one is doing. To yield to ones genetic not compassion, is a substitute for mastery.

yearnings may be the weaker coursesimply because its easier. And that,

It Takes Two To Tango

advantage of us. They may not even be able to help it. This may be part of human nature. It doesnt mean we should attach conditions to our love, but it does suggest the need to set a certain level of expectation for others. I can relate the case of a couple who were friends of my parents,

If we love unconditionally, certainly some people will try to take

George and Ann. They were on in years; shed suffered a stroke and he took meals; he took her for her daily trips to the park. He lit her cigarettes. Her

care of her. He loved her deeplyand did everything for her. He cooked her

214

physical therapist said she could greatly improve if she really worked at it,

but she wouldnt. George could do everythingand wanted to. She fell deeper He died shortly after.

and deeper into dependence, then self-pity, then depression, and she finally died. The tragedy here is no doubt clear. We ought to care for others but its

certainly wrong to encourage unnecessary dependence. If through our love

we allow others to become so dependent, we not onlyrob them of their dignity but we weaken their biological potential as well.They may use usthey may feet. We should help them to do so. need to for a whilebut ultimately one must expect them to stand on their own We also can consider setting expectations for our encounters with

strangers. Even if were compassionate enough to love the neighborhood bully, we should also let him know hes not going to intimidate us. The opposite of aggression isnt necessarily retreat; both can trigger the killer instinct in others. Standing ones ground, however, conveys a different message than either. Thus Gandhi in South Africa

215

would walk down sidewalks reserved only for whites, even if the truculent

constable and his henchmen were standing there. He loved them, yes, but he had expectations for them as well. I hope we can all see the strength in this. to set expectations that causes the complications that give cynics their ammunition against love. We cant really blame them. Theyre only looking at a narrow part of the picture. We all have to broaden our vision if we expect to see greater possibilities for the future. It might be said, then, that it isnt love itself but the failure

for idealists and screenwriters looking for a happy ending. What were speaking of here is more about plain hard workwith a

The world isnt going to be suddenly beautiful. Thats a dream

purposethan any magic formula for ameliorating the worlds ills. But lack will. Human will is one of the strongest forces in the world. Its difference.

things can get better. Not through wishing but through willing. We dont only waiting for the proper application. And thats going to make all the

216

CHAPTER ELEVEN Love and the Cosmos

Seeking Ultimate Truths

questions that seem to have relevance but are actually unimportant. Whats the meaning of society? Is there a law good for all people?

In the search for truth, as an old Chinese story goes, there are

Where did we come from? What are the boundaries of the universe? According to the story, a certain man put off seeking spiritual enlightenment until these questions were answered, and he died before he found the path! fathom one or two of them, would we be happier? Any closer to living The fact is, we may never know the answers. Even if we were to

217

a better life? Any more able to love? Maybe the primitives were wiser

in simply applying mythical thinking to the ultimate questions. Myths of reality, and have the added advantage of being translated directly into human experience in the form of beliefs and guides for behavior. The crocodile clan of Papua New Guinea certainly knows more about its the herpetologist who cuts up a croc to see what makes it tick.

instinctive knowledge put into story formare no less powerful explainers

(mythical) ancestor, in terms of practical information for living, than does This is not to dismiss rational observationwere all scientists to one

degree or another, rememberbut only to suggest again that instinct (the sixth sense?) may be just as powerful a receptor of reality as the on eyewitness testimony shows that if ten people see the same ordinary five. In fact, the five senses often deceive us. Recent research event, there are typically ten versions of what happened. Magicians

exploit this fallibility of the senses to create their magic. So there are a

218

couple of fundamental problems related to the contemplation of ultimate

truths: first, such pursuit may be irrelevant to personal enlightenment; second, for such contemplation. That said, we keep searching nonetheless; this is our heritage as heirs to the Western rational tradition. But if search quest feasibleso were not just waiting for Godot. Ultimate Reality we must, lets be certain we develop the tools we need to make our

our scientific viewpoint, based on the five senses, may in fact be a feeble vehicle

Gods eye, a philosophers dream, or the mechanical contraption

Whats the true nature of the universe? Is it a speck of dust in

described by contemporary astronomy? Or is it none of these things? And do we dare ask why its here? If we can pick ourselves up from us, we can try to get our bearings once again. Standing in a dark the floor long enough to recover from the blow that these questions give field at night and looking up delivers such a punchand yet one wonders why primitives, living with the stars every night, are so untroubled by the sight. Is it our civilized ideas that somehow trip us up? It may be that primitives see things more directlyand feel at one with that universe while we filter everything through a screen of modern beliefs and

aspirations. If only we could see everything more directly! This is, after all, of life. They try to apprehend reality more as it really is.

what practitioners of Zen attempt to do. They do it to overcome the illusions Its a little troubling when we read the Hindu scriptures and

219

find that the world itself is an illusion. Even life and death, the

mainstays of our conception of reality, only exist in the mind, were told.

This argument, discomforting as it is, is persuasive. After all, when the mind that was so concerned with life and death passes on, that world of life and death passes with it. Theres little appreciation for this in the West, although When we consider ultimate reality, then, what are we to think?

occasionally we can get this flavor from William Blake or Emily Dickinson. We are above all a practical people. Wed like some useful application of cosmic principles or wed rather not be bothered. This isnt simply another facet of American anti-intellectualism but a theme running deep in Western history. We dont live with Nature, as the Kalahari bushmen ad nauseum in these pages. The natural forces have an interest for us insofar as we can use them to make a buckand only rarely for their or the Peruvian Indians, but have endeavored to control it, as Ive repeated

spiritual or moral content. Poets aside, our heritage has been a perpetual and extract wealth from it. The study of physics, for example, simply

flight from Nature, pausing only to transform the world into real estate provides us with new machines and weapons rather than opening new paths toward spiritual realization and self-understanding along the lines of Fritjof Capras fascinating thesis in The Tao of Physics. This is whats meant by

the term materialism. It has less to do with buying TVs and cars than with a natural to us. Changing ones basic attitude requires enormous discipline. Again, this is the reason for the expression, spiritual discipline.

basic orientation toward life. We inherit this narrowworld view and it seems

220

do, as the mystics do, or those with the courage and stamina to discipline themselves long yearsto see directly and without the interference of our accumulated prejudices. It may be that only after a

If were to know ultimate reality, we must somehow see it as the animals

glimpse at the natural balance of our inner world and the outer cosmos fashion an artificial one as weve been doing.

will we be able to understand our place in the worldinstead of trying to

Practical Reality

mountains may be filled with dreams and visions, but we ourselves are

The tribes inhabiting the reservations on our plains and in our

of a more practical bent. Our system of education, from kindergarten to

post-doctoral study, isnt geared to dreams but to practical reality. Our game plan is unquestionably getting ahead. Rsum-enhancement is perhaps the most expedient of tasks in our society. Therefore, any subtle vibrations

from the cosmos are easily ignored, if sensed at all. This is what were up of lesser resistance is to search for truths with practical applications. That seems like a fair compromise.

against when we entertain the idea of seeking spiritual truth. Maybe the line

what serves our own purposes. Like the practitioners of black magic of

We ought to be careful here, because theres a tendency to see only

ages past who used their spiritual understanding to try to harness dark

221

forces useful to them, we may be tempted, because of our vocational

orientation, to select from our own vision of the cosmos only those forces which serve to strengthen our competitive position in the arena. With more sensitivity and diligence we might find that the arena is larger where we transcend it altogether.

and less competitive than we had thought. And we may even reach a state The purpose of a cosmology, if we dare be so bold, is to enable us to join

ourselves to all things, and to understand the joys and responsibilities of

that attachment. Ive been saying this all along. With this new vision we just and which bind us to everything else. Some of us obviously dont see this. We cant perceive the larger universe and the integral role we play in it.

might be able to perceive the interrelationships that give life its cohesiveness

The very concept seems fanciful. But we ought not to succumb to a limited vision of lifes possibilities, even though our practical natures may incline future rests on our ability to see it. us to do so. Theres a larger reality than the one we see now, and in fact our Weve inherited and expanded a tradition of rationalism that goes back

to classical Greece, so we cant expect to overcome its materialist bias overnight. We might even run some risks in our attempt to perceive

222

reality in broader termsafter all, were going against our cultures basic

orientation. Were open to charges of strangeness, silliness, laziness, even

arrogance. Well undoubtedly be asked how our newfound knowledge will be a stony one, and our feet are tender. Our culture will lend us no shoes. more practical than any of us now realize: human survival itself.

help us make a living. In fact it may initially hinder us. The road to truth can Were on our own. But the rewards of our journey can be great, and perhaps

The Unified World

of interrelationships? Might it not be just the oppositea fragmented world of discrete objects and life-forms, all existing and operating independently? But even science today is beginning to affirm an

How do we know that ultimate reality consists of a universe

interconnectedness. The emergence of supportive data from highenergy physics and the acceptance of a notion of ecology are just two examples of the growing evidence of a world not of disconnected

223

fragments but interlocking complements. We might then consider the illicit, who describe a blurring of distinctions and a sense of cosmic harmony. We know that the peyote ceremony of the Plains Indians conveys a similar experience upon its participants. And medical

testimony of those involved in drug experimentation, both sanctioned and

research involving the administration of LSD to terminal cancer patients

showed an increased feeling of well-being resulting from a greater sense of is, of course, predated by the spiritual teachings of many centuries past. just now beginning to recognize what has been known for millennia. Modern rationalism thus seems a bit old-fashioned, in that its

a larger plan and ones place in it. All this emerging modern interpretation

Modern medicine, for example, is just beginning to concede the efficacy years. After all, to the senses, theres no relationship between Theres no logic to it. But to the acupuncturist, who sees the

of acupuncture, which the Chinese have been practicing for thousands of sticking needles into the skin and healing in another part of the body. interrelatedness of every part of the body, this materialist logic is myopic. It fails to grasp that theres more to reality than whats readily apparent to the five senses. It seems we must override the

224

biases of the intellect, not abandoning it (god forbid!) but teaching it to work with the instinctual level of perception instead of against it. As we noted back in Chapter One, when Dylan Thomas wrote that

the force that drove the flower drove him, he wasnt merely struggling for a poetic metaphor. He was trying to express a fundamental relationship, even if one repudiated by the senses. The idea of a common energy source to which all of us are connected is as old as the oldest religion

but is just recently being considered by us moderns. And yet many have already written it off as a trendy pantheism coming out of the 60s era and still kept warm by its dying embers. The new age of awareness once

professed by the so-called love generation looks like just another shameless, self-important California fad, nurtured by shrewd gurus who know how to milk a concept. Our skepticism is well-founded. There have always been

snake oil salesmen roaming the American landscape, with plenty of willing buyers. But just as we must be cautious about rejecting religious doctrines (because beneath the dogma they may contain truths), we should likewise be wary of rejecting sincere visions of new realities because of the crass behavior of some of the modern hucksters of the Age of Aquarius.

225

societies, agnosticism has become a fashionable response to dubious central point of a lack of evidence regarding the existence of God or absolute truth. Heres the materialist viewpoint in full flower,

With religion coming into growing disrepute among modern

religious claims. Its significant that agnosticism revolves around the

depending on observable data to ascertain reality. But can there be a what we can see in front of our noses? Yet its certainly a legitimate

more useless philosophy than one that maintains that we can only know response to the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of some of todays religion. (blindly) on faith, to the opposite extreme, accepting nothing (again, blindly) on faith.

And in true reactive fashion, it goes from one extreme, accepting everything

by rational people in biology, medicine, physics and other hard-science fields thats beginning to substantiate some of the reality claims of the worlds spiritual teachers. What this will do to agnosticism isnt clear,

It should be noted, once again, that theres growing documentation

but it could very well reduce its ranks. But it would be a mistake to assume that science will someday substantiate everything, because it is, as Ive been yammering on about here, most effective in dealing with material

phenomena. Its ill-equipped, both conceptually and technically, to deal with the spiritual life. One would hope that it will adapt. Physics and medicine a common mission are greatly hindering them. in particular seem to be headed in that direction, although inertia and lack of Psychology is light-years behind, in spite of the contribution of Jungs

work, and other science fields, with their fundamentally mechanical

legacy from the past, may be back farther still. But as all of them keep

226

probing, more and more clues will turn up and we can probably expect to see more head-scratching and eureka moments as time goes on. Atheism will be a harder nut to crack, since even if the atheist

comes to accept the cosmos as a vast wheel of interconnected energies, he or she may still doubt the claim that theres a basis for morality there. The atheists basic disbelief in spirituality may also preclude him or her from the disciplined personal search for ultimate truth. If theres arduous journey toward its discovery. If the universe is decipherable, let the experts work on studying and explaining it. There may be no arguing with this point of view since ultimate reality, if we want to no divinity to the cosmos, theres no real need for one to undertake the

call it that, cant easily be taught but is best perceived directly by the

individual. If the atheist is unwilling to undertake the effort necessary to achieve such a view, no amount of argumentation will have any effect. However, if a person has been to the cosmos and back, so to speak, and has developed a loving spirit from that experience, this love alone may be able to convey to the atheist the genuineness of that experience. What about the adherents of religion? Where do they stand in

relation to the sublime cosmology? Again we might apply the example of love, for if a religious believer doesnt truly love others, he or she is really just a follower of religio-cultural practices and not a true believer. Of course not all the worlds religions preach love, but

certainly if we include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism among the major ones, most of the worlds people are

227

exposed to a doctrine stressing caritas. Thus an understanding of the greater Love, which can grow out of such understanding, is the visible clue to its let it show us how to love one another.

spiritual reality is not a threat to religious beliefs but a confirmation of them. existence. If we must have religion, let it be based on a universal truth and

The Natural Environment

to drive in a mechanical Mustang while real mustangs and the wildlands they inhabit are being squeezed out of existence. This may be an apt, if unpopular, metaphor for our entire culture.

Do we really love Nature or is it mere sentimentality? Were content

because were satisfied to fill our world with representations of Nature instead of the real item. Everywhere we look are symbols of the natural world while Nature itself languishes. We ought to be realistic about our concern for Nature if we have any thought for improving

I say that our love for Nature may be mere sentimentality simply

that relationship. And if were to heed the pleas of both visionaries and

228

environmental biologists, we have to improve it.

living side by side in perfect harmony. The lions claws are too sharp and the scorpions sting too painful. But the opposite extreme, and the one toward which we seem to be headed, is to obliterate everything natural. buffaloes in order to feed the men who were advancing civilization

We cant have a world like a Rousseau paintingman and beast

Buffalo Bill Cody once claimed to have killed over four thousand

westward via the railroad. Bill later attempted to package Nature in Coast and Europe. This was at the same time (and not an unrelated event) that the Indians were being moved onto reservations. This caging of wild things while making a tour out of the artificial has included human beings in the caging. Wed like to believe weve progressed since those frontier days, but one has to wonder.

his Wild West Show, which toured the civilized world of the East

Theres the profit motive, which weve already discussed. If there was any the self-worth and peace of mind that are the craving of all human beings. So profitread never-ending surplus hereis of little use to us. Second, controlling Nature seems to enhance our safety. Subdued Indians and

There seems to be some justification for subjugating Nature.

conclusion reached in the chapter on money, though, it was that it cant buy

dammed rivers cant very well harm us. But theres evidence that modernity hasnt eliminated risk but merely traded off one type of risk for another.

229

When we take into consideration the number of people injured or killed

by automobile accidents, poisonings and industrial mishaps, stress-related heart attacks, carcinogen-induced cancer, plus the myriad of debilitating conditions caused or aggravated by modern life such as emphysema, migraines, nervous tension, depression and others, it appears that the once inhabited. It may even be more dangerous.

artificial world were creating is really no safer than the natural one we On the other hand, there are some distinct and practical

justifications for maintaining Nature in a purer state. One is aesthetic, in whether were in awe of the Grand Canyon or simply watching a bird

the profoundest sense of the word. The natural world is plainly inspiring, outside the window. The sea is majestic, the desert a blue-domed cathedral. As poets and modern primitives have lamented, were losing (or have lost!) our appreciation of these things. Its easy to lose touch with the stars when one lives in a city. But the inspiration to be gotten from Nature may be the deepest available to us because au fond were natural creatures and

230

cant help being touched by the closeness of what were essentially a part of. Like rebellious adolescents tasting freedom for the first time, were struggling against the natural world, but deep inside many of us is the

growing awareness that Nature is both father and mother to uswere part

of a family. To the civilized (jaded?) among us, this may seem just a hippie Second, if we preserve the land, air, and water for the wild things

conceit. But is it? As the saying goes, a way of seeing is a way of not seeing. of the earth, we preserve them for ourselves as well. If wild creatures

can flourish, so can we. If the deer have no open space to romp, neither do we. can we enjoy and benefit from them. If animals are put in cages because

If fish can no longer inhabit the rivers because those rivers are unclean, neither theres no other home for them, then we may finally find ourselves encaged. that this polarity weve created between us and Nature is simply a fiction of also be a vision of home. Human Perfection

If were somehow able to get a glimpse of ultimate reality, we may see

the materialist mind. And that a vision of the larger dimension of reality may

Now theres a contradiction in terms! You cant blame us for trying,

231

though, caught as we are in a kind of evolutionary half-step between brutes and angels. If we cant rush consciousness, at least we can dream a little. Imagine a primitive person who, perhaps thirty thousand years ago, longed for a less savage life. Imagine him yielding to a quiet inner voice which said, Thou shalt not kill. Were he to cease his yearning for such a principle, we might still be carrying sticks for protection today. Dreams have their utility not only in making the Max Weber remarked that history proves we couldnt have achieved the should know that better than anyone.

present more tolerable, but in helping design a better future. The sociologist possible without constantly reaching for the impossible. We as Americans Were truly in a curious position, owing to the peculiar condition

of our neuroanatomy: developed enough to be aware of our foibles, not

developed enough to overcome them. Its not merely a question of ideals this neurological predicament alreadyfinding that were not only

exceeding reality, but some think exceeding capacity as well. We examined confronted with an idea-producing brain plopped on top of an animal

brain, but a division of that higher brain into two hemispheres, each having

different functions. If we allow the lower brain to rule, we return to the law our deeper selves. If we favor the left hemisphere of the higher brain, we become too coldly calculating, too analytical; if we favor

of the jungle. If the higher brain reigns, we lose touch with both Nature and

232

the right hemisphere, we become too fanciful, too superstitious.

What does it take to put everything together in a balanced state?

enlightened individuals who seemed to be human in the fullest sense of the word and yet at the same time divine. They appeared to have overcome the debilitating divisions of the mind that hamper the rest of us. Did they have more developed neurological structures than us biological laggards? Thats always a possibility, as well discuss in the

In an earlier chapter we mentioned the avatars of God, those

next chapter. But its also possible that we all have the same general brain structure appropriate for our era. The difference, then, is what we do with it. Some people, of course, seem to have minds like beasts while others a quiet life and never reveal the secrets of ones heart. Or one can enter perceive it may be more a matter of style, then.

are definitely spiritually inclined. Yet we dont always know. One can live the arena and proclaim ones vision for all to hear and see. Divinity as we The fact may be that were all a bit divine. Maybe a more

modest way of putting it is that we all have the capacity, to one degree or another, to see the spiritual dimension of life and the dormant while others actively develop it. Still others try to

moral imperatives it can reveal. Some allow this capacity to remain systematize a method for its realization or try to define the moral laws it reveals. To worship one type of individual while holding others in contempt or indifference is a rather inadequate approach to ultimate realityit indicates that one really doesnt have a grasp of the

principles conveyed by that reality. Altruism, the fundamental morality of the spiritual life, cant be developed through hero-worship, but only

233

through a better understanding of the spiritual teachings. Its the teachingsthe way of lifenot the teacher, that are of primary vehicle for something greater than themselves. importance. As most of the great souls have said, they were only the We may have reverence, then, for those who approach perfection,

and rightly so, but its really beside the point to elevate them to an exalted status and yet not practice what they taught. Thats idolatry. In a very important sense the teachers are no greater than their students. Maybe only better informed. When we make them gods, we automatically debilitate their teachings because we feel we can never achieve such perfectionand or pursue it with such single-mindedness as they did, but the difference teachings go with them. The love they taught seems unapproachable. these creatures experienced a restlessness just like we do. The

some of us quit trying altogether. True, we may never have a vision so clear may simply be one of degree. When we put our teachers out of reach, the We cant know the mind of the Neanderthal, but we can guess that

sensitive ones among them could not have been unaware of the great

234

changes taking place in consciousness, albeit slowly. Would it have been appropriate for these early homo sapiens to notice which among them prematurely reflected the consciousness of the coming age and worship

them as gods? (Or punish them as devils?) The temptation is there in any

age. In the far future we may be a race of bodhisattvas and yet still worship the heralds of an even more advanced age. Maybe this is human nature. teach. But it certainly interferes with our learning what these forerunners have to In our minds we can imagine perfection but in the long term

perfection may be relative. Thus in effect we may never reach a

perfect state, nor can even the avatars, for no doubt there will always be

some higher state. This could understandably cause some discouragement, faults of this age, weve done our part in helping usher in the next. One

yet it really doesnt have to. If we can just attempt to remedy the prodigious of the great themes of life isnt so much one person struggling a lifetime

to reach perfection as an unconscious group effort to prepare a better way spiritual truth.

for succeeding generations. This appears to be both an evolutionary and a

235

The Majestic Cosmology

were hindered in part by neuroanatomy and in part by attitudeand we cant expect to attain perfection, either. But the rewards for always

We may never have a complete understanding of ultimate reality

pushing back the frontiers can make the effort worthwhile, if were able to doing what we oughtand that, not perfection, is possible for us all.

recognize the rewards. Maybe only in trying will we have a deeper sense of Lifes fulfillment will surely come more from a profound sense of

doing the right thingloving othersthan from any clever manipulation latter. But the heart ultimately knows whats good and whats not, even if to look beyond its familiar surroundings and seek more perfect truths.

of the material world for personal gain. We can easily get caught up in the the mind sometimes doesnt. If the heart is crying out, its time for the mind

236

CHAPTER TWELVE Love and Morality

The Basis for Morals

night. It goes back millennia, and will be with us as long as we

Why be good? This isnt just a question for teenagers on prom

have freedom of choice. The very fact that we have laws shows that were laws. Thats a logic thats not hard to follow.

not really sure how to act. If everyone knew how to act, we wouldnt need In an ideal world everybody would have a clear concept of their rights

and responsibilities; that is, society could rely on peoples inner control instead of imposing external controls. But while were waiting for Utopia we may often seems more like a fire in a circus tent than the workings of a Swiss of existing statutes. be grateful for the profusion of laws and the police who enforce them. Life watch, and we may be more than a little disturbed by calls for any softening Although the law may seem unjust, especially to the poor of any society,

principles; for example, restraint from violence, honesty in business dealings and so on. The fact that many people follow neither morality nor the law indicates how great the problem confronting us is. We need either more morality or more laws, and we really dont need the latterwere

we ought to concede that on the whole it appears to embody some universal

237

drowning in a sea of laws as it is. What might be more effective is

to encourage people to control themselves, although control really isnt the precise word, since control suggests a forcible shaping of behavior. Again, true morality may more likely come from a recognition of our interrelationships within the larger cosmos. As I said in Chapter Ten,

this includes not just concern for self, family or country, but the entire

interrelated world of living and inanimate thingsand a disciplined effort to align our behavior as closely as possible with this understanding. This is what Ive maintained from the beginningwe see how we fit in as an

integral part of the world and we act on that knowledge. If we see our ties our ties with the environment, were less likely to abuse it. So were not if not more so.

with others, for example, were less inclined to wrong them; and if we see forced to conform but are led by an inner logic which is just as compelling, If were looking for a foundation for morality, then, it cant just

come from platitudes about ones responsibility to society or duty toward the government. Lets face it, too much of this kind of morality is simply calculated to keep everyone in line. People are encouraged to accept the rightness of the way things are, whether that way is just or not. But an ethical system must be equitable. If it isnt, it will always be

sanctified by those who benefit from it and violated by those who dont.

Law and order is a useless and deceptive concept because its never of must have equal responsibility.

equal benefit for all. Morality must be impartialall must benefit, and all

238

value of morality. Its undeniable that Christian ethics, for example, was sometimes used to keep the meek in their place, and the

Religion, weve noted, is no less culpable in undermining the

reading of Christian social history will confirm this to all but the most naive reader. We need not be cynics to recognize this. And next to Hinduism supporting a sometimes despotic system of castes, Christianity can look past that. We have to be charitable, if not to institutions, then at least to

blameless indeed. But whos talking about blaming anyone? We have to look those who draw sustenance from them. We all need a set of rules to follow and they have to come from somewhere. If Ive been less than kind in my

239

scrutiny of institutions in these pages, its only to reveal the need for a better source of rules than theyve provided. As D.H. Lawrence said the chick to reach a larger universe. doesnt break the shell out of vengeance against the shell but out of a desire Lets consider again that morality ought to be built on the truth

of the deep but invisible ties that join us together and to the world. skin, degree of prosperity or even alienness to our consciousness.

These bonds exist irrespective of material differences, such as color of The Muslims or the nearby river are no concern of mineif were moral we can no longer say this because were bound to and responsible for both. This burden of moralityto be responsive to all thats around in life, a casting of ones lot with others, since thats in fact the

usisnt as heavy as it might appear! It simply reflects an immersion deeper reality of our existence. Were all principals in the cosmic

ballet; you and I and every bird and stone. If we want so badly to be refined, why not try to refine these relationshipsclarify them, improve their quality?

Conventional Morality

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral, or fattening. Theres

240

more than a little truth in this witticism. Life is hard, for sure, and

no one is to be condemned for a taste for pleasure. Small pleasures

are what keep most of us going. But social pressure mounts when small hunger. This is bound to cause problems.

pleasures enlarge. Our appetites being what they are, theres no end to our Whats illegal is generally enforced by ones society, immoral

by ones neighbors, and of course fattening, by ones body. Everywhere to circumscribe our behavior in some way. Most we wouldnt willingly impose on ourselves if we didnt have to. But as we know, law and convention are vigorous in their demands.

there are prohibitions, some natural and some artificial, and all are intended

things we learn shouldnt be done. Theyre deemed harmful, either to ourselves, others, or the public sensibility. In many cases the action in the times. Yet this mixing of prohibitions based on ultimate truths and question isnt in violation of any universal law but only the manners of local manners makes it very difficult to discern one from the other. Thus

What are some of the things that were forbidden to do? Simply

conventions strengthen themselves by association. The only way we can

free ourselves from artificial restrictions while still maintaining a clear sense of right and wrong is to begin to grasp morality for ourselves, or at least as much of it as were ablebecause convention, although it may carry the full weight of the law behind it, is merely social custom. Convention kept brightest young minds into technical

women out of politics for most of our nations history; convention steers our

241

fields instead of literature, for example, thus minimizing any reflection

upon our civilization and its direction; convention permits us to pay the kings while millions of others languish in an economic no-mans-land. theres a price to be paid. You yourself may have paid once or twice.

stars of our society hundreds of millions of dollars so they can live like Yes, we can challenge conventionsthere are rebels in every societybut Universal truths deal with the unseen relations among all things

while conventions are concerned with preserving order and the status quo. is, a well-organized and tranquil societyis clearly lacking. We can have and which convention maintains. If we could only begin to untangle the

If we look around us, the status quo is plainly inadequate. And order that neither love nor peace with all these illusory divisions were presented with web of restrictions that, for the sake of propriety and good sense, separate us from one another and from the truth about what is really good behavior! run, hinders our exploration into the greater possibilities of our humanness and, in the long run, confuses us even as to what course we should take in order to live a better life than the one now offered to us. Convention, while providing us with comfortably narrow paths in which to

truths, expedience is far more practical a guide for behavior. We may be forbidden to kill, for instance, because of some transcendent principle, but it might be permissible under certain conditions: when applied

Conventional morality proposes that although there may be universal

to apparently unredeemable criminals, soldiers of ones current enemy,

suspected terrorists, unknown victims of collateral damage and so on. society over any ultimate code of conduct. In doing so, it loses the right

Conventional morality has a way of stressing whats merely convenient for to be called morality at all. Its little more than what seems suitable at the

time. Whats expedient. Thus convention is of limited value in guiding our

242

behavior unless its aligned with universal truths. The Moral Society

wouldnt be any fun. Thats understandable. And if that were really the case, who could blame us? But in fact the morality weve been

Most of us dont yearn for a moral society because we think it

talking about all along relates to the way we treat each other and the

world we live indoing it in a more responsible and compassionate way. That society would seem to me to provide more opportunities for fun. At arbitrarily restrict our enjoyment. the very least. Not to mention freeing us from senseless conventions which Lets attempt a different approach here, one that tries to get at

the kind of problem were dealing with when we speak of the moral

society. Lets begin with a peculiar kind of question, perhaps bizarre even, but one that may provide us with a good starting point. The question: why of authority? do the ruthless and manipulative among us always seem to rise to positions Anyone who has worked in a variety of job settings cant help

but be struck by the fact that ones superiors often seem to be

people least capable of loving. If one has no boss, one might turn to ones competitors and observe. Theres a disagreeableness, a singular lack of

243

noblesse oblige among many achievers and authority figures in modern even arrogance is actually required for rising in our society.

society. Why is this so? One wonders if a certain degree of insolence and Successful social climbers may justify their unreasonableness by simply

pointing to social Darwinism. Lifes a struggle, after all; and besides, dont the fittest rise? This hackneyed philosophy was popularized by the robber barons of the Gilded Age over a century ago and still lingers today. But in a fulfilling way isnt really a sign of fitness. It may even be that

lack of a creative sense about how to engage people in a working enterprise individuals who actively seek out cooperation (the nice guys who

finish last) are more crucial to the long-term survival of our species than the manipulative ones thinking of their own prerogatives (and careers). typically rise faster and higher than the former? More on this in a later chapter. But the question remains: why do the latter

244

than some members of the species, and that creative, cooperative people may be the forerunners of the society of the future; that is, theyre examples of development away from the patently material lifethe life of the brute.

We ought to consider the possibility that society evolves more slowly

Qualities like sensitivity, a cooperative vision, the capacity to express (and level of development, then we might safely say that persons with such

receive) love, the courage to do whats rightif these are signs of a higher capacities are indeed fitter than those without. That they are less fit for

our society isnt so much a paradox, then, as an irony. People who have History has given us abundant examples, and a quick scan of our own friends and acquaintances may reveal the same thing.

or encourage these qualities in themselves are often less able to survive.

are liable to feel a private grief that they arent living up to the

Those stepping to their own music, however measured or far away,

expectations that their society and more particularly their loved ones

have set for them. Thus the high incidence of disquiet among prophets,

dreamers, creative and gentle souls of every type. Can there be any doubt of this? When one feels unable to compete on equal terms with the other beasts of the forest, there can be a heaviness of heart, even a turning against students dailysuch individuals can think theres something wrong

oneself. I know this firsthand because I started out as a teacher and saw it in

245

with them. But theres really nothing wrong with the lovers of peace who sensitive, but we noted many chapters ago that sensitivity is the quality that permits one to see the larger picture; that is, reality for what it more

decline to participate in the treachery of the arena. We may say theyre too

nearly is. If our civilization is in fact a process of desensitizing people, then society itself should more appropriately be thought of as lacking. Without sensitivity we can have no firsthand knowledge of how to live or how to sensitive, but that we arent sensitive enough. love. Thus if there is anything at all wrong with us, its not that were too Sensitivitythe reader shouldnt confuse this with sentimentality or

weakness, though theyre both commonisnt the only quality necessary to bring morality to society. Alone its hardly more than a private vision with gilded edges. Its just a starting point. One needs discipline, sense of purpose, courage, and maybe above all, perseverance. All this seems

obvious. We dont want a society where everyone writes pretty poems about

their secret dreams. A land of lotus-eaters would in the end be satisfactory to dynamic pursuits. We need challenge, adventure, exhilaration. The genes

no one. Given our biological energy, we have to occupy ourselves with more arent going to stand by quietly while we sit in meadows singing paeans to hope for a better future.

buttercups. But we do need dreams, moral ones at that, if were ever to have

Morality and Love That elusive butterfly, love. If people were less inclined to dream, we might be content with romance alone. But you and I know theres a

246

part of us that yearns for something more. We might write a thousand left with a restlessness. Were looking for something and we cant

ballads and still be unsatisfied. Why? Because romance cools and were seem to find it. To truly love and be loved may be our greatest wish as human beings, even though much of what we do seems to make it impossible. Thus we are immoral.

the commands of our spiritual vision, which leads us into a closer and

Morality isnt found in following cultural edicts but in obeying

more selfless relationship with the world around us. Morality can open

the door to love. The religious and conventional morality of today does

247

much to separate us from one another and to define our relationships in the narrowest possible terms. Far from helping to solve the critical problems confronting us, modern morality maintains them, even magnifies them. Its built upon the idea that, as Lord Chesterfield reflected more is not expedient. Were living by a lesser truth today and suffering than two centuries ago, the lesser truth is adequate when the whole truth the consequences, when we might be seeing the whole truth and opening

up a wider world for ourselves and generations to come. We dont need to create something new. We simply have to recognize whats already there.

248

CHAPTER THIRTEEN Love and Eros

Romance Revisited

how we began Chapter One, remember? They dont need florid ideas tacked onto their reproductive process to motivate them to carry on the species. But were the romantic type. Somehow we have to find a way to live with that. Until now, our reaction to our biological realitya kind of

Protozoa dont fall in love because they dont have to. Thats

Romeo-and-Juliet scenariohas been halfway workable. But the world

is too small and the difficulties too numerous for us to be able to rely on cannons to the right of us.

adolescent affectations much longer. There are cannons to the left of us and

249

leads to happiness, the other to heartbreak. Most of us will gladly take the chance. Were ready for the rapid heartbeat, the dilated pupils, the sweaty

Romance, that enticing fork in the road of humdrum reality one way

palms. The exhilaration of it all! Theres no feeling like having found ones seemingly-perfect complement. And thats all part of the plan, the impetus love. for reproductive activities, though we may call it something else. We call it If Ive come down hard on romance here, its not because of its

intrinsic qualities but because of its confusion with love. If romance is love, then we have no solution to the problem of how were going to save this world (or at least ourselves) from disaster. Romance itself isnt the

problem. And its certainly not as bad as its been portrayed in these pages. chapter.

Ill try to redeem it (and my credibility among romantics) somewhat in this We fall in love and thats part of the design. Were meant to. Its part

of the chemical party in our heads that induces us to mate. Literature places it squarely at the center of the human condition. We laugh

about it, cry about it; its always with us. This kind of love makes the world go round. But the time of reckoning is near. Lets play the game, enjoy the not call it love. excitement, the utter joy of being with the perfect partner. But please, lets

250

The Romantic Mind

the psychologist, and the balladeer will all agree. Were definitely hooked! Theres magic in the way a certain person walks and talks and we

We cant live without romance. This is a point on which the biologist,

just cant escape it. Were susceptible to such mundane symbols that surely must seem funny to someone somewhere. Were players in a comedy of sorts, but our lines are serious. If romance were reserved for teenagers alone, we could all playedas an adultand I have little doubt that you may have, too. have a good laugh. But wait a minutewere all players here. I myself have For those interested in the archaeology of consciousness, this must

be a fascinating study. How far back will we find romance? Cleopatra, the

Israelites, the Sumerians, all sure bets. Beyond that, we can be less certain. people now. What kinds of images filled their minds? We know

Do we dare go back ten thousand years? Twenty? Were talking about hairy

251

they had ideas, because weve found paintings on cave walls. Weve found tools and carvings. We can speculate with some justification that any mind able to conceive of tool-making, of

artistic representation, is capable of romance. If romance is potentially who said anything about doing away with it?

so old, were not going to do away with it in one or two generations. But The romantic mind is here to stay. Even if we only trace it back

a few thousand years, a mere moment, it still may be deep enough in human consciousness to be rooted there. The question is, how do

we deal with it? If its force is so strong that we can literally be swept

away, as in Lina Wertmllers provocative film by that name, some caution is needed. Not that we have to formulate a rational plan, by any means. By dealing with romance, this is merely to suggest putting it in a more appropriate place and not letting it interfere with the larger problem confronting us: how to really love one another.

it, but we shouldnt let this fundamentally biological experience encouraging more selfless behavior. Caritas, or love.

Romance can add spice to life and rejuvenate us just when we most needed

blind us to our responsibility in the larger cosmic scheme; that is,

Romance in a Loving Context

ment, of course, and whats romance to one may be nothing more than a

Who among us hasnt been in love? There are degrees of senti-

formal feeling in the chest to another. Some of us cant sleep; others of us of gee-whiz feeling, but whatever the response, the experience itself is

simply chew our food faster. The spectrum goes from great passion to a kind

252

virtually universal. Only the reactions may be different.

Obviously, that romance ought to have love as its foundation. That may sound strange, but it isnt at all. We all know instances of true love where jealousy or resentment have turned the lovers into enemies. People of morality other than its own satisfaction. Untempered by love, it can be treacherous or it can consume over a long period of time in silence. This, craving but all the attendant emotional needs as well.

What can we say about it, then, that should apply in all cases?

have killed their lovers for love. The drive behind romance has no sense

then, is more properly called desire, by which we mean not only physical We may never extinguish desire itself. Being alive means being filled

with a multiplicity of deep yearnings. Thats part of the bargain of life. There are biological necessities that have to be attended to if were to stay alive. To eat, to grow, to extend our range of activity, to procreate. The body constantly sends such signals to the mind. Lets seeIm hungry; what should I have? Of course, we shouldnt be so naive as to think that this is our idea. The image of pizza or crepes that fills our head may be our particular response, but the impulse didnt originate there. So it is with

romance. Another message from intercellular space, flowering into images in our minds. The difference between good romance and bad, so to speak, may lie in the character of the response. If were hungry, for example, we can eat like gluttons or we can show restraint because were aware of the

253

laws of nutrition. We may even go further and eat only gruel like some

monastics do, thereby minimizing the impact food has on our consciousness desire dominate ones thinking or behavior. The reader will forgive me for

(which we may want to use for other things). In other words, one need not let the stating the obvious. Somehow we have to learn how to indulge this desire we must eatin a way consistent with our understanding of life. Can we do this with romance as well? We will fall in love, maybe more than once. Some people even seem

to make it a hobby. Whats our understanding of this? We love the other

person so much. Are we sometimes shocked to find other emotions lurking Were too often caught off guard because our expectations are suddenly jolted back to reality. We arent entering a heavenly abode so much as a genetic hinterland where truly the toughest survive. Theres so often a

there when our partners ardor has cooled or has been rekindled for another?

254

negative outcome to love that we experience pain and disillusionment.

Love is cruel, we might say at those times. Ive said it myself and believed it. But such a misconstruction is understandable, having been given a false picture of love as we have in the first place. Theres treachery in romance and we know it but were still not

prepared for it. I think if we could better recognize what were dealing

with, we might moderate our fantasies from the beginning with a bit of

realism and be spared some of the heartbreak. And we might spare others as well. If we knew what to expect, and we really did love the other person (as of the egogoaded by the genesin undermining love. We could establish some priorities. Above all, wed be aware that what were experiencing in adding spice to love can destroy love, and with it something much more well as being in love with them), we could more easily understand the role

preciousour confidence in love as an actuality which can bring us all closer together. When thats lost, theres little left to live for, except maybe money. On occasion romance is successful over the long haul. Some people

255

are so well matched that little effort is needed to maintain equilibrium. Others have such subdued libidos that all they seem to want to do is stay home together for quiet evenings of TV. But the fast pace of urban life, the proliferation of sensual images in advertising, the

acceptance of titillation as a legitimate form of entertainmentall susceptible to its whims.

serve to make romance more volatile than ever. And maybe make us more It could be that love is strong enough to accommodate romance. It

depends on the persons understanding. Romance can be so intense that understanding pales in comparison. But if the mind is strong and the spirit is committed to love, then we can fall in love with a little more by a loving heart into an exuberance thats delightful for both partners.

peace of mind. The energy, self-seeking as it is, may be able to be adapted

Eros Unchained

ever on the alert for transgressions, needs an occasional example to serve as similar community standards while at the same time contemplating a a warning to others. Today were in the exasperating position of having

Hester Prynne suffered the scarlet letter because the community,

virtual absence of standards. This paradox may be better understood if we consider ourselves in a transition periodto what, we may not be

256

entirely sure. Weve been moving from procreation to recreation, and expanding even on that, making for a potentially confusing situation. Through most of our lives, perhaps all of our lives, the body is

sending sexual impulses to the brain. Even male fetuses are known to

have regular erections while still in the womb. What are we to do with

all this excitation? How do we deal with this raw energysometimes a thousand possibilities, from sexual indulgence to piano lessons. Not

slow, constant trickle and sometimes a burst of intense passion? There are a only must we decided among the many choices, but we have to make the

decision again and again, maybe as long as we live. The safe way, of course, is to let the community decide for us, as it decided for Hester Prynne. But as history teaches us, communities arent always right. Theyve made mistakes and even committed cruelties in the name of morality. As the Nuremburg final arbiter of a persons actionsat least until the community learns All the more reason for a spiritual morality. trials should have established, conscience and not community must be the morality. But how soft and accommodating our consciences are nowadays!

257

drive to eat causes most of us few problems (though nowadays this may be debatable). In any case, there are many possibilities, from fasting to gluttony. Yet even if we dont follow our societys pattern of

If we return to the analogy of eating, we find that the basic

eating, this is no cause for scandal. Health food devotees, for example.

They can eat their alfalfa-sprout sandwiches with little more than raised

eyebrows from the occasional critic. But eating, even though it can be done communally, is essentially an individual activity. Sexuality, on the other hand, is primarily a search for partners. We implicate others in our designs. Thus ironically, sex is in one sense actually a public activity. And we have much stronger than food cravings. the capacity for releasing passions in ourselves and others that are potentially In traditional communities todayas in the old daysthe character

of sexual response is circumscribed by a host of prohibitions. If behavior

can be controlled, human predictability is enhanced and social disruption

can be minimized. But in urban areas and in rapidly changing communities,

the centrifugal forces of life are more difficult to control. Moreover, various even books urging us to freely indulge our sexuality. Personal satisfaction is the morality of these wilderness

experts, some with legitimate claims to authority, have published articles and

258

guides, serving to legitimize philosophically what the Pill created

chemically decades beforethough the foundation for this belief goes back at least to Freud, who believed that any repression of desire led to neurosis. And hedonism, if we can call it that, goes back much further than that. energies? The straight and narrow or the crooked and wide? If So which path are we to follow with regard to our sexual

we walk the latter, which of the many erotic byways should we

take? Without a guiding principle, we seem to be at the mercy of the genes and whatever images are able to be created in our minds. Or at the mercy of a community potentially guided by prejudice. It seems better to know from within that what were doing is right. Wed have a confidence that be darned sure we know how to handle this fickle god.

only inner knowledge can bring. If were going to unchain Eros, wed better The erotic wilderness should have love as its foundation or it

will always remain just thata wilderness. If its not to be a case of the

blind leading the blind, we ourselves have to direct our energies properly. about the quality of the relationships were establishing by our sexual

We may not care about community standards but we ought to be concerned representations in the world. Our actions, to be truly loving, must entail

259

more than satisfaction alone. Theres more than personal gratification at sense of connection to the human community.

stake here. Theres another persons sense of worth, and there is ones own We use civilization as our means of escape from the jungle, but

nowadays its a material path and therefore not wholly effective. Reading A more spiritual path may offer the only real means of transcendence. If sex there would be no human lifewe ought to consider using spiritual

the newspaper demonstrates this clearlywe still have a foot in the jungle! were to maintain vestiges of that jungle in order to surviveand without knowledge to guide our behavior. Sexual satisfaction is an empty phrase

because of its patently materialist bias. The mind, heart and spirit must also be satisfied. This is what we ought to have in mind when we let Eros out of his gilded cage.

Eros and Love

weve been dealt to fulfill it. Nothing could be simpler. Any difficulties that arise are due to our own confusion. Animals have few such difficulties. Living in a Nirvana-like world of a continuous present,

We have a biological obligation to fulfill and sex is the card

they neither pine over sexual losses nor fret over imagined future ones. They can be overpowered by a rival one moment and casually eat an and terrible idea-center nestled on top of our animal brains, reacts to erotic stimulation with a frenzy of neural activity. Wethe self that afternoon snack the next. Our burden, the higher brain, the wonderful

260

receives part of its selfhood from the very thoughts this activity generates are left to cope with it. If we could select, mate and forget about it, we might be a lot

happier. We cant. Evolution comes with strings attached. Were our thoughts are frequently directed at this erotic force that so

destined to thinkalthough we probably dont look at it that wayand often directs us. Weve yielded to it, weve suppressed it, and just about customs. Each generation has created a code of respectability,

everything in between. Weve made scores of laws about it and a thousand sometimes varying incredibly from age to age and culture to culture. frustration. This is our lot and there are no easy solutions.

Adherence to it provided some protection from doubt, but never from If a person is able to look through the golden veil and see

a deeper reality, the romantic wilderness may begin to look more like a penetrable forest. It may still be difficult but at least there will be guideposts along the way. The journey through life is never easy, and maybe thats all we can ask for at this point: a few signs to show us the way.

261

262

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Love and the Simple Life

Why the Simple Life

to other countries in Asia to paint. Shes looking for examples of pure thought, distilled essences of the Oriental mind she says, to capture

A Japanese friend of mine is a painter and makes regular forays

on canvas. She recently returned from India and had a very interesting

observation to make. She said that in contrast to Japanese children, Indian the full meaning of it.

childrens eyes sparkled. I thought about this a lot and tried to appreciate In Japan the children seem relatively happy, as children do nearly

everywhere. But the pressure for academic success there is great. The

juku systemthe practice of sending children to private study schools

up to five nights a week in order to gain a competitive advantageweighs quite heavily on Japanese kids. They must take rigorous exams to get into a good junior high school, then a good high school, and finally, into a good got a much greater chance of being chosen by a large company for a well-

university. Once in a good university they can relax a little because theyve paying job. But this childhood competition shows on their faces. Ive lived arent entirely absorbed in the present, as children typically are. Theyre compelled to keep one eye on the future, a future that may be

there and I can say with reluctance that I often saw it in their eyes. The kids

263

influenced by how well theyre performing at age six or seven. This is a lesser degree, by children in all the developed countries. The hamster wheel does exact a price.

heavy burden for children to bear. And its a burden shared, to a greater or

nor that chronic poverty is desirable. Both can be bitterly cruel. We simply

This is not to say by any means that the Indian caste system is just,

ought to note that these conditions have put less emphasis on success and accompanying material acquisition as the primary goals of life. Day-to-day living is the rule instead. And in this absorption in the present, theres a kind of equilibrium. There are problems in India, as there are everywhere. Serious ones, not to be taken lightly. But the childrens eyes sparkle. This fact seems to be worth noting. Abraham Maslow may not have been wholly correct about a

hierarchy of needs. He assumed that once basic needs are satisfied, we

move upward to increasingly complex ones; for instance, we start at food, then strive for safety, then for love, and so on. The top of the hierarchy was selfactualization. Had he spent time with the Guaymi Indians in Panama, from a Western intellectual tradition that may have less applicability actualization in spite of the fact that they didnt climb through this for example, he might have more fully realized how much he was speaking outside that tradition. That is, simple peoples may be quite close to selfhierarchy of psychological complexity. Many anthropological studies have revealed a kind of centeredness about such people that we just dont seem to have, even as they still struggle for survival at the bottom rung

of Maslows hierarchy. It might actually be possible, then, to consider his

theory in reverse: by reducing complexity and allowing oneself to focus more

264

on simple daily needs, one may also approach self-actualization. This is no new theory but simply a thought to consider.

Some Final Reflections on the Spiritual World

sublime world of pure energy. As we noted, physics today is beginning to peer through a door that mystics and healers have walked through for millennia. Atoms, those famous building blocks of all things, can no longer be thought of as particles of matter. We now know that the little tricksters

We may be materialists but its difficult to deny the existence of a

arent solid at all but are actually bits of energy. So it appears that there isnt simply one world, that solid one we see, but two. At least two. But they are, in reality, one.

world? How can it have values? Again, we cant really prove it. We have to feel it for ourselves or, as many do, rely on the proclamations of the masters. However, if were inclined to be more objective, we might ask ourselves why teachings of these many great souls were so similar. Even shamanistic traditions in distant and unconnected cultures are nearly

How are we to know that this world of subtle vibrations is a spiritual

265

identical. Why is the message of the spirit so universal? This may be too much a coincidence for objectivity to comfortably admit. But if one is alternative but to investigate for oneself. still a skepticand theres no lack of skepticism todaythere may be no Were fond of calling material reality the real world. Now

more than any time in history we rely on the five senses. This is the legacy of our current reliance on rationality as the way to orient from spirituality, as a society, than were the peoples of the past. ourselves to the world. For this reason were probably further away And Id be willing to wager that at no time in history were people more likely to have a hunger for things closer to the soul than right now. This saturation of consciousness by the material world has given us our

present picture of reality. Our modern philosophy, seeing is believing, has led us away from the larger reality of existence and has prevented us from century of conflict and confusion. plainly seeing the actions that could lead us out of this terrible twenty-first

The physical world offers us no comprehensive guide for living. Few

266

of us want to act out the drama of the genes and nothing more. Is

it, as some have suggested, that we need an awakening of sorts? That seems like an appropriate metaphor, since going through life following the narrow conventions of modernity is a kind of sleep. We

need to find a more spiritual lifeor the path toward itif were to be

more fully awake to the deeper facets of existence. Living a simple life Victor Hugo wrote, the quiet voices of the soul can be heard.

may help us by limiting the noisy interference of civilization so that, as

Animals

continual references to animals or animality in these pages. Some

The reader may have grown tired of hearing what must seem like

people get uncomfortable even mentioning people and animals in the same sentence. Yet within the natural world, animals are our closest kin and so have been used as examples. The fact is that in a sense deeper than biology, we may be just as close to the desert cactus as we are to

chimpanzees, although using words and a modicum of logic as we must

here, this would be difficult to establish. It seems nonsensical. So I stick to

267

the familiaranimalsas much as possible. In a materialist world, they seem a lot easier to relate to than cactus. Animals know how to act. We have to give them credit for that.

And by and large they rely on an inner sense of what to do. We call it

instinct. Weve become civilized and in doing so have to a great extent lost turning in a widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer. We have lost our natural selves.

touch with this sense. The words of Yeats come to mind here: Turning and steadily increased the distance between ourselves and the inner voice. Weve Does this mean that we have to live like animals, fighting and

scratching and mating in public? Must we be gauche and obnoxious?

This may be one interpretation of returning to ones natural self but it

misses the point entirely. Consider the paradox of my argument all along having our thinking become less civilized and yet our behavior more so. so.

piously claiming hes just trying to be himself. In stripping away

We certainly dont want our neighbor spitting out the window and

civilization, we dont mean to bring back the inelegance or unpleasantness of our supposed superiority to animals (and stones and waves breaking on place in the world.

of much of the past but simply to reduce the noise and remove the symbols the sand). So that we might realize, once again, a deeper knowledge of our Of course we fear the obnoxious and the violent, and not without

reason. Both seem to be everywhere on the increase. But we have the

power within us to know the deeper truth about ourselves, and this may

268

be our greatest powergreater even than violence. In this sense you can call me an optimist, in spite of the cold reality of our limitations and the many impediments in our path. In a sense were prisoners of modernity, of the Middle Ages. We cant just wish that away. My optimism doesnt irrepressible power of the human spirit.

no less than people of a thousand years ago were prisoners of the thinking come from what I see now, but from my belief in human possibilities. The Modernity as weve let it unfold wont let us live a simple life. Thats

clear enough to all of us. We enter its noisy machine and forever go round and round. And its so impossibly hard to get out. Our society wont let us and neither will our own highly-stimulated nervous systems. But somehow we so many times, but lose our own souls.

have to find a way or we may gain the whole world, as weve been warned

The Foundations of a Good Life

espouse what amounts to a life of physical inactivity. Not a few seekers after the heavens minimize the bodys participation in lifes dance in favor of more mental footwork. I alluded to this in Chapter Thirteen.

Some advocates of the simple life, contemplatives and the like,

But while a cerebral two-step or simply sitting along the wall watching

others dance may satisfy some, its not for everyone. We might be better

off striving for a balance between body and spirit by vigorous activity of both. For others, this may not be practical because of the intense conflict experienced in attempting such a reconciliation. This conflict seems to be

part of our Judeo-Christian inheritance. Many have accepted a bias against the body, often leading to a life-long yearning for the next, pure world. I

269

dont share this view, and cant agree with those who consider the world as maya or illusion, either. This is where Im a scientist. The reality of this world is clear enough. And its a starting point

for exploration of the world beyond everyday consciousness. In this sense Im not a spiritualist but a scientist seeking the spiritual life. Were rooted in the body, and I think this is more than just a

cultural prejudice. We know where we stand in the course of human development, or presume to, and shouldnt deny it in favor of an idealistic search for a higher world where the body is just a cruel illusion. The problem in life is not to disavow our biological

heritage but to do the best we can with it. The body is the vehicle for whatever travels we can make. Certainly the body will wither, as spiritualists are fond of telling us (often without undue sympathy, one might add). But we need not be so terribly preoccupied with the future world. For the time being, we live in this one. We need to know how to navigate its tempestuous waters. We have to serve the spirit now, in this physical body. If after death the spirit lives on in eternity, then well have plenty of time to think about that part later.

270

nowadays arent going to buy a theory that promises some future paradise

Our knowledge has made us scientists and skeptics. Most of us

because of any perceived untenability of this material reality. On the other

hand we cant deny the existence of the spirit simply because our eyes and world and deny the existence of the other. Life is much richer than that. the wind blow. Yet for some thats a beginning. But biology insists on a The simple life isnt necessarily sitting in a field listening to

ears dont readily call our attention to it. Too many people try to live in one

dynamic, enterprising life and if were to fulfill that aspect of our being, we must be active. And to lead a balanced life, we ought to guide that activity with an awareness of deeper truths, which means periods of silence and reflectionand discipline. Knowledge of both worlds, and participation in bothto me this is the foundation for a good life.

Love and the Simple Life I hope the reader recognizes and will excuse the many oversimplifications presented in these pages. The world is obviously

271

far more complex than its been made out to be here. But for all of us there has to be a way of approach, a starting point. And, of course, a risk. My risk was in trying to describe the ineffable.

alone spiritual understanding. Words arent equal to the task as

There doesnt seem to be any easy path to the simple life, let

guides. One must make ones own way, using whatever tools are at hand. We must be individualists, if only because we need the individual heart to lead us to a stronger and more loving community. Love is the most important thing in the world for us. Its the only force that can hold us

together at a time when were rushing apart. Yet even though we talk about love, sing about it, even dream about it, we cant seem to take hold of it. not a feeling, but a relationship. Maybe were looking in the wrong place. Love isnt romance, but spirit. Its It may be that the paths to ones self, to other people, to ones

place in Nature, to the spiritual life, are all the same path. There

are many doctrines today leading to one place or another, but we

really need to go everyplace at once if were to fulfill ourselves as

human beings. A complex life may hide from us that one path going only in silence can we find the way.

everywhereinstead, showing us many little paths going nowhere. Maybe

272

position or not depends entirely on ones attitude. It may engender conflict in us, but it also offers the opportunity for what may well

Were spiritual animals, so to speak. Whether this is an enviable

be unlimited creativity. The possibilities for realization, for accomplishment, for love, are there. We have only to believe to make the great wheel turn. Romance is fun; romance is exciting. It makes us feel young and

fully alive. It fills us with hope. Its chemical dance in our brains is a high of peaks of human experience. We should revere it and cherish it. But lets not call it love.

incredible proportions. It makes anything seem possible. Its truly one of the

273

274

BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTES For the skeptical reader, the following notes are intended to provide an

outline of some pertinent works that might in some way lend support to the ideas discussed in this book. Because the range of topics was necessarily broad, the references are obviously not exhaustive; they are limited both by space and by my own preferences. They do, however, offer a modest overview of the essential points.

GENETICS, EVOLUTION. There are a large number of available (New York: New American Library, 1957), a short, non-technical

sources, but a good starting point is Julian Huxleys Evolution in Action introduction to the field. More ambitious readers would do well to go on to the work of Stephen Jay Gould, especially Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (New York: Norton, 1977) and an excellent sequel, The Pandas Thumb (New York, Norton, 1980). For a balanced and rather more technical approach, see Theodosius Dobzhanskys Genetics and the Origin of Species (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959) and the contemplative Mankind Evolving (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1962). Dobzhansky, one of the most imaginative in the field, is probably the most philosophically challenging. Those wishing to go back to the source of Species (New York: Modern Library, 1936). For a readily accessible discussion of genetics, see James D. Watsons The Double Helix (New should, of course, refer to Darwins seminal if somewhat timeworn Origin

York: Atheneum, 1968), a personal account of his critical research. And

Richard Dawkins contention that it is the genes rather than our bodies that

275

we should examine for evidence of evolution is persuasively argued in The perspective on the march of biology, see The Parable of the Tribes; The

Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). For a more social Problem of Power in Social Evolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984) by Andrew Schmookler. For a view of compelling research suggesting that even political opinions are gene-related, see Man is by Peter Hatemi and Rose McDermott, eds.

Nature a Political Animal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011),

PREHISTORY. An excellent book on early humans is the short but scholarly Adams Ancestors (London: Methuen, 1953) by Louis S.B. Leakey, whose monumental studies in the field with his wife Mary Leakey established a precedent for a whole generation of researchers (which is, however, not without its critics). For a collection of very readable philosophical

speculations filled with wonder, Loren Eisleys The Immense Journey (New

York: Random House, 1957) is excellent. Other accounts include John E. Pfeiffers competent survey, The Emergence of Man (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), the indomitable Robert Ardreys African Genesis (New York: Atheneum, 1967),

and Robert J. Wenkes Patterns in Prehistory: Mankind's First Three Million Years (New York: Oxford University Press,1980).

276

One of the best but now neglected studies is the late Oxford anthropologist

W.J. Sollas Ancient Hunters and Their Modern Representatives (New York: Macmillan, 1924), a fascinating and detailed discussion that seeks to better understand the past by locating analogous aspects of culture today. Also Sonia Cole, who worked with the Leakeys on various field studies. For (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.) valuable is The Prehistory of East Africa (New York: Macmillan, 1963) by a philosophical commentary, see Graham Clarks Aspects of Prehistory

BEHAVIOR. The study of behavior encompasses so many disciplines that we can only consider an overview here. Purists will surely want Appleton Century Crofts, 1938) and his later, ingratiatingly literate to consult B.F. Skinners early The Behavior of Organisms (New York: defense of behaviorism, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Knopf, 1971). Less controversial but perhaps more germane to our study is the work of Niko Tinbergen, a useful example of which is his Social

Behavior in Animals (London: Methuen, 1965). Konrad Lorenz Studies in is also excellent. For Lorenz generalization to human society and its

Animal and Human Behavior (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970) future, see On Aggression (New York: Bantam, 1967). Additional insights into similarities in animal and human behavior can be found in Desmond Morris popularization, The Naked Ape (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967)

277

and Robert Ardreys The Social Contract (New York: Atheneum, 1970). Another view can be found in Behavior and Evolution (New York: Pantheon, 1978) by Jean Piaget, who is better known in this country for his developmental research with children. A very good discussion of animal language, social structure and motivation can be found in

Jacques Gravens Non-Human Thought (New York: Stein and Day, 1967), which makes a strong case for the idea that animal consciousness is more profound than is readily apparent. A good synthesis of the various Harvard Belnap, 1975).

parallel strands is found in Edwin 0. Wilsons Sociobiology (Cambridge:

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES. A classic in the field is The Mind of Primitive Man (New

York: Macmillan, 1911) by Franz Boas. A structuralist analysis which nevertheless

owes a lot to the work of Boas is Claude Levi-Strauss The Savage Mind (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1966), but some feel his approach is outdated in some and others. For Geertz, see Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (New York: Basic, 1983). One of Batesons finest studies the ceremony of the Iatmul of New Guinea, showing quite clearly the study is in Erich Fromm and Michael Maccoby, Social Character in a is Naven (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1958), an examination of richness and complexity of so-called simple peoples. Another helpful Mexican Village (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970), while The

respects by the more phenomenological approach of Gregory Bateson, Clifford Geertz

Zunis, Self-Portrayals (New York: Mentor, 1972) looks at the Native American

278

through oral folktales passed on for generations. Margaret Mead edits

a wonderful book entitled Cooperation and Competition Among Primitive on both the Naven ceremony and the Zuni people. Misrepresentations

Peoples (Boston: Beacon, 1961) which, incidentally, contains commentaries concerning the backwardness of primitive peoples are ably contested

by Jack Weatherford in Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas article on the Senoi Indians and their advanced system of non-violent

Transformed the World (New York, Crown, 1988). See also a wonderful social interaction in the article, Dream Theory in Malaysia by Kilton

Stewart in Altered States of Consciousness (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1972), edited by Charles Tart.

ROMANCE. One could well make the case that the best source of

material on romance is to be found in local magazine racks; but beyond that, a very fine if uncritical volume is Falling in Love (New York: Random House, 1983) by the Italian sociologist Francesco Alberoni.

Dorothy Tennov coined the term limerance, meaning romantic love, and eyes it skeptically in Love and Limerance: The Experience of Being in

279

Love (New York: Stein and Day, 1979). For a popularized but fairly

comprehensive and literate history, Morton Hunts The Natural History of Love (New York: Knopf, 1959) is superb. For a psychological view, see Tarcher, 1980), Theodor Reiks Of Love and Lust (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1957), and Robert A. Johnsons excellent We: Nathaniel Brandens The Psychology of Romantic Love (Los Angeles: J.P.

Understanding the Psychology of Romantic Love (New York: Harper and Row, 1983). The latter is a Jungian interpretation of Tristan and Iseult, showing the incredible but misdirected power of love in Western

civilization. For a realists somewhat jaded view, theres Stendhals On Love

romance and love, see Jose Ortega y Gasset, On Love (New York: Meridian, 1957). For romance when it shows its true colors, Nancy Fridays Jealousy (New York: Morrow, 1985, is an indispensable book. The work of Freud was not a little concerned with romance but because of my purposely restricted approach, I have generally omitted discussion of his formulations (anaclitic and narcissistic love, Oedipal constructions, transference and so on, as well as later amplifications such as Melanie Kleins conjoining of love and gratitude, Kohuts self-self object relationship, etc.). Obviously, though, an overall assessment of romance owes a lot to the psychoanalytic literature. See the A. A. Brill translation of Freuds The Interpretation of Dreams (New York: Modern Library, 1978), and Beyond the Pleasure Principle (New York: Liveright, 1961), James

(Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1947), and for a treatment differentiating between

Strachey, ed. and trans. Also, Erich Fromms The Art of Loving (New York: Harper, 1956) and The Sane Society (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1985).

280

EXAMINING SOCIETY. Part II was concerned with an analysis of a number of sources. A definitive primer on social analysis is the

various social institutions, and for a background in that we can look to brief and perhaps underrated Invitation to Sociology (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1963) by Peter Berger. An essential supplement which builds on the development of the sociological perspective is Bergers The

Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1966), written is Emile Durkheim, probably best represented in Emile Durkheim:

with Thomas Luckmann. Another excellent source for conceptual analysis Selected Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), edited and with a very good introduction by Anthony Giddens. Especially valuable are Durkheims concepts of organic and mechanical solidarity,

and his discussion of the effects of religion on society. For one of the most substantial single works on ideology, see Karl Mannheims Ideology and from an anthropological perspective, see Ruth Benedicts well-known Utopia (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1936). For social analysis Patterns of Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961). For interpretations of personality forms in various societies, the anthropological work of Clifford Geertz and Anthony F.C. Wallace is invaluable. I especially like Geertz The

281

Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic, 1973) and Wallaces Culture

and Personality (New York: Random House, 1970). Finally, although its not fashionable today to say so, we owe a great debt to Nietzsche, particularly in The Will to Power (New York: Vintage, 1968), Walter Kaufmann, ed., which long ago confirmed my own intuitive understanding that ones cultures highest values can and ought to be more carefully scrutinized. for the collection of his brilliant if sometimes acrimonious writings collected

MONEY. Money comprises a legion of volumes, mostly dealing

with modern economists two main preoccupations, Keynes and the stock market. But for our purposes, Melville J. Herskovits The Economic Life

282

of Primitive Peoples (New York: Knopf, 1940) comes reasonably close (however by way of reader deduction). Two quintessentially American books on how to make more money in order to get what you want in life Hill (Cleveland: The Ralston Society, 1937 et al.) and what I regard as an L. Lechter (New York: Warner Books, 1997). The popularity of these

your share of the gold, so to speakare Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon updated take on it, Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert T. Kiyosaki with Sharon books, among a plethora of imitators, shows quite clearly how deep runs the craving for more money in our society. For works taking cognizance of the relationship between money and sense of self-worth (and worth in society), F. Scott Fitzgerald and continuing to the present. Especially revealing (if crass) are some of the more popularized works such as those by Arthur Hailey, Jacqueline Susann, Jackie Collins and others.

the reader is advised to consult any number of modern novels, starting with

LAW. For conceptual background in law, one can draw from several Morality Garden City, N.Y: Anchor, 1969). This slim but trenchant book deals with law from a social but not sociological perspective.

volumes, one of the best being Burton M. Leisers Custom, Law, and

Another approach is found in Law and Philosophy (New York: New York Hook, each focusing on basic principles from a person-in-society point of view. Another collection which is insightful but a bit abrasive, coming

University Press, 1964), an excellent collection of essays edited by Sidney

as it did from the Vietnam War era, is The Rule of Law (New York: Simon social justice mode and go to great lengths to debunk some of the myths surrounding law in America. More volumes dealing with an analysis of society while not focusing on law per se (though concerned with social Civilization.

and Schuster, 1971), edited by Robert Paul Wolff. These essays are in the

rules) can be found in a later section of this bibliography called Modern

283

MADNESS. This is a tougher gameeveryone has a bias, because might well say that were all amateur psychologists. To survive in

while not everyone is a lawyer able to comment eruditely on the law, one the twenty-first century, one has to be. Many of us were initiated into a

different reality of madness with R. D. Laings The Politics of Experience might be a journey rather than a state of mind. See also Laings later

(New York: Pantheon, 1967), which suggested quite rationally that madness The Facts of Life: An Essay in Feelings, Facts, and Fantasies (New York: Pantheon, 1976). Thomas Szaz really opened up the field, though, with should be required reading for all mental health professionals but understandably isnt. For an exploration of the social milieu of The Myth of Mental Illness (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), which

psychopathology there is Interaction in Families: An Experimental Study by Elliot G. Mischler and Nancy E. Waxler. For an intimate look into tried to help them, including Laing and his followers, see the

of Family Processes and Schizophrenia (New York: Wiley and Sons, 1968) the lives of people considered mad and the machinations of those who excellent A Social History of Madness (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, is especially valuable. For an insight into his approach, see

1987) by Roy Porter. Princeton Universitys series on the work of Carl Jung The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1972); for a broader perspective and discussion of symbolism and the psyche, there is The Archtypes and the Collective Unconscious (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971); also, Civilization in Transition

284

(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970). A more neurological

approach is taken by Robert Ornstein, whose account of left brain/right

brain functions is detailed in The Psychology of Consciousness (New York:

Viking, 1972). later and more expansive view is offered in his Multimind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986), although some critics may feel his work is somewhat over-generalized. A more scholarly if rather dry account of hemispheric functions and the implications for consciousness can be found in Sid 1983), which also has a comprehensive bibliography.

J. Segalowitz Two Sides of the Brain (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,

MODERN CIVILIZATION. No one examines ones own society with

impunity, especially when it shows so many outward signs of success. Yet ours, from virtually every direction. For brevity well restrict ourselves to some representative examples.

at no time in history has any society been subject to such critical scrutiny as

285

critical analysis of American society (here we assume the reader is familiar with the nineteenth-century Romantic movement in art and literature, as well as the antecedent reform movement in America in the 1830s and

Thorstein Veblen was one of the first modern observers to apply a

1840s, expressing in a more general way many of the same discontents). Veblens Theory of the Leisure Class (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973), first appearing around the turn of the 20th century, is still worth reading today (if one can get through Veblens prose, which H.L. Mencken said affected the brain like a constant roll of subway expresses). Vance Packard is more approachable; especially pertinent is his A Nation of

Strangers (New York: McKay, 1972). The sociologist Peter Berger again Hansfried Kellner in The Homeless Mind (New York: Random House,

makes an appearance, this time in collaboration with Brigette Berger and 1973), a study of the anomie of modern life. Claus Mueller looks at the

ways in which class, economics, and modernization interact to restrict the

ways we communicate with one another in The Politics of Communication delivers a somewhat harsh report in Culture Against Man (New York:

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1973). The anthropologist Jules Henry Random House, 1963). A more reserved though quite fascinating account of the effects of our culture on communication and interaction in general can be found in Edward T. Halls Beyond Culture (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1977). William H. Whyte Jrs bestseller The Organization Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956) shocked freedom-loving purists by demonstrating that modern corporations fostered conformity and more disturbing yet, the participants actually grew to like it. Another troubling and well-written account of modern times is The Lonely Crowd (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1950) by David Riesman (with Reuel Denney and Nathan Glazer), which contends that we are losing the inner-directed strength that helped us build our great nation. Always a reasonable and dispassionate observer

286

is Louis Mumford. I especially like The Myth of the Machine, Part One, 1967) and Part Two, The Pentagon of Power (New York: Harcourt,

Technics and Human Development (New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Brace Jovanovich, 1970). An attempt to tie modern dysfunction in

great measure to a misunderstanding of ecological principles is made by Viking, 1980) and Algeny (New York: Viking, 1983). A thoughtful and

Jeremy Rifkin in two generally well-received books, Entropy (New York: scholarly volume on the evolution of our civilization away from a natural Us to War (New York: Bantam, 1988) by Andrew Schmookler. In a radio

medium of fulfillment is Out of Weakness: Healing the Wounds That Drive interview he remarked that civilization emerged out of a natural order and something to ponder.

created anarchy; thus the rise of civilization led to the fall of Man. Thats To some, bureaucracy is a four-letter word. Few modern

institutions are viewed so unfavorably and yet few extend faster. The

prototypical analysis of bureaucracy was done by Max Weber, whose work can be sampled in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958), edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Another fine treatment is by Peter Blau, Bureaucracy in more detailed but less conceptual than Webers can be found in The

Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1956). A historical treatment Bureaucratization of the World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973) by Henry Jacoby. The works of Edward T. Hall and Berger, Berger

287

and Kellner (op. cit.) also contain excellent discussions of bureaucracy, particularly its unintended consequences. Science and technology bear a heavy burden for dysfunction in the

literature of modernity. One of the best-known studies of the modern (New York: Knopf, 1964). An equally sophisticated but rather more

condition is the theologian Jacques Elluls The Technological Society intellectualized account of the effects of science and technology can be found in Toward a Rational Society (Boston: Beacon, 1970) by Jurgen Habermas. He is especially concerned with their restrictive effects on

consciousness and the implications of sciences depoliticizing tendencies on a democratic society. Also by Habermas is Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon, 1975), dealing with alienation due to the social destruction of meaning and its substitution with technical meanings responsible only for the maintenance of power and efficiency. And despite its abrasiveness, Herbert Marcuses One-Dimensional Man (Boston: phenomenon.

Beacon, 1968) is worth a look for its insightful treatment of the same Broken pledges of the technological society are also unfortunately

well-represented, particularly in terms of its failure to make good the promises of liberation of the Enlightenment. One of the best

288

discussions on this subject is in The Hidden Injuries of Class (New persuasively that the keystone of the rational society, equal

York: Vintage, 1973) by Richard Sennett and Jonathan Cobb, who argue opportunity, is a myth. Another penetrating study is by Caroline Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) provides a

Merchant, whose The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific historical look at how the scientific revolution replaced an organic (in social order despoiling the environment and maintaining the

Durkheims sense) world view with a mechanistic one, creating a new subordination of women. Also supporting the latter thesis is Marilyn French in Beyond Power; On Women, Men, and Morality (New York: Summit, 1985), who investigates the failure of the modern age to reverse the despotic patriarchy of the past. One is also urged to turn to Alvin Gouldners perceptive The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the power invested in scientists, technicians and other supporters of the but is simply maintaining them in different form.

New Class (New York: Seabury, 1979), in which he observes that the new scientific society is not being used to remedy the injustices of the past There is also an ample literature of divergent opinion on the

subject, some of which applauds science and technology and some of which attempts to absolve them of the primary responsibility for the times is Carl Sagan, whose very fine works have done much to problems of the modern condition. The champion of science in recent deepen appreciation of its positive achievements and possibilities. In York: Random House, 1974) is a good example. Peter Drucker, in

particular, Brocas Brain; Reflections on the Romance of Science (New

289

Technology, Management, and Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), especially his essay in chapter eleven, The Technological Revolution: Notes on the Relationship of Technology, Science, and Culture, argues that is responsible for the radical changes wrought by modern society. In a different but parallel tack, two population geneticists, Richard Harvard University Press, 1985), contend that it is capitalism, not

that its not science but the technological revolution overcoming science

Levine and Richard Lewontin, in The Dialectical Biologist (Cambridge: science, that is culpable for present conditions, especially for what they call the commoditization of science. I also find valuable the work of Arthur Koestler, who in his Janus: A Summing Up (New York: Random the neurologically unfinished human mind, rather than science or technology, that is responsible for our tragic predicament. A more

House, 1978) reached the conclusion that it is Man, or more specifically

optimistic note is struck in The Wisdom of Science (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1986) by Hanbury Brown, a short, persuasive and literate account of rational thinking. Nobel prizewinner Roger Sperry is also on the optimistic side in his Science and Moral Priority (New York: Columbia University

Press, 1983), in which he argues that science should enter the realm of values so that the gulf between it and spirituality dissolves. However, Alvin Gouldner (op. cit.)

290

convincingly demonstrates the naivet of this position in that the new

technical intelligentsia is proving to be just as jealous of its worldly

prerogatives as the leadership in previous ages. Sensitivity to this last point may be found in the number of books defending science against perceived encroachment, especially by religion. This is particularly visible in the evolution/creation controversy. One of the most articulate of these works is Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1986), More on the attack is Philip Kitcher, whose Abusing Science; The Case which argues for a godless but nevertheless elegant and beautiful universe. Against Creationism (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1982) is a logical and witty

engagement of the enemy, though Dawkins weighs in again with The God by Science and Creationism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), edited by Ashley Montagu. For a view that bypasses science and technology altogether and

Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.) A balance is more nearly struck

suggests that many of the difficulties of modernity may be the result of population growth and competition for new economic opportunities, see the historian Kenneth A. Lockridges fascinating study of the trans-

formation of Dedham, Massachusetts from a cooperative, loving community to a fractious group of competing self-interests in A New England Town; The First Hundred Years (New York: Norton, 1970).

291

RELIGION. There are both religious books and books about religion,

and here again the choice among them is made difficult because of the else has guided my selection, particularly for those I thought might be valuable to the reader with regards to the work at hand.

great number of available volumes. Personal choice as much as anything

The Sacred and the Profane; The Nature of Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1961) is a very fine introduction, and his The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969) is also

Especially useful are the writings of Eliade Mircea. His well-known

worth consideration. A well-balanced account is Arnold Toynbees excellent An Historians Approach to Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956). A scholarly but very readable history of the Church is available in

Paul Johnsons A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1976), and of Christianity (New York: Harper, 1937-1947) in seven volumes by Kenneth Scott Latourette. Anthony F. C. Wallace gives us another

the more enthusiastic reader may want to look at A History of the Expansion

perspective in his Religion: An Anthropological View (New York: Random

House, 1966). A daring and scholarly treatment of the possibility of religion

providing the means for living a good and meaningful life is Hans Kungs On history is the excellent Studies in Jewish Thought (Philadelphia: The Jewish The work of Elie Wiesel is important; I like his Souls on Fire: Portraits and best social social histories of Islam, see Islam in the World (New York:

Being a Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976). In Judaism, a well-respected

Publishing Society, 1974) by Simon Rawidowicz, edited by Nahum N. Glatzer. Legends of Hasidic Masters (New York: Random House, 1972). For one of the

292

Oxford University Press, 1984) by Malise Ruthven. For a detailed study of

Japanese folk religion, theres Shinto: The Fountainhead of Japan (New York: Stein and Day, 1967) by Jean Herbert, one of the better outsiders views of a subtle and often misunderstood subject. A short but detailed exposition of Buddhism and its points of contact and departure from Western thought is Takuwa from Buddhist Society manuscripts; it is, in spite of the English rendering of the title, a work of sound scholarship. The writings of D.T. Zen, which is not a religion but more properly a method of training the Grove, 1964) is a good starting point for Western readers, and also has an excellent introduction by Carl Jung. A ground-breaking book in its

Perfect Freedom in Buddhism (Tokyo: Hokuseido, 1968), translated by Shinji

Suzuki are of considerable value in opening up some of the mysteries of mind for quietude. Suzukis An Introduction to Zen Buddhism (New York:

day, William James The Varieties of Religious Experience (New York:

293

Modern Library, 1936) is still worth reading for its penetrating analysis of religion and states of consciousness. Also very useful is the thoughtful The History and Philosophy of the Metaphysical Movements in fine volume on female spirituality which explores the goddess principle through myths and symbols in Jungian fashion is Nor Halls The Moon and the Virgin; Reflections on the Archetypal Feminine (New York: Harper and Row, 1980). And for a point of view not often given equal an account of her own unique and intimate spirituality. America (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) by J. Stillson Judah. A very

time, see Luisah Teishs Jambalaya (New York: Harper and Row, 1985), For primary sources elucidating some aspect of altruism, there is no

lack. For the Bible I prefer the King James version (New York: American Bible Society, various dates) because of a majesty not found to the same degree in the various revised editions. I also like The Living Talmud, University Press, 1957), edited by Judah Goldin, because of its

The Way of the Fathers; And Its Classical Commentaries (New Haven: Yale elegance of language and richness of message. An excellent volume The compendium of history, parables and teachings. The Way of the Sufi

Teaching of Buddha (Tokyo: Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, 1981), is a wonderful

294

(London: Jonathan Cape, 1968) by Indries Shah is a fine introduction to Islamic mysticism, while traditional Islam is well represented by The Koran Interpreted (New York: Macmillan, 1955), translated by Arthur J. Arberry, which is a more lyrical, emotional rendering than the well-known Muslim World LeagueRabita, 1977). The Book of Mormon but perhaps too literal translation by Pickthall, The Glorious Koran (Mecca, (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1976) also has a substructure of caritas which comes through strongly and clearly. For a It Is (Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1 to love through the Bahai faith can be found in The Reality of Man scholarly and sympathetic presentation of Hinduism, see Bhagavad-gita As on the text by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. A brief introduction (Wilmette, Illinois: Bahai Publishing Trust, 1962), while a Rosicrucian Grant (San Jose, Ca: Supreme Grand Lodge of AMORC, 1925) shows remarkable similarities to nearly all of the above works. The moral philosophers who aided in the transition from the

publication reportedly translated from a Tibetan manuscript, Unto Thee I

religious to the secular age are ably but by no means completely

represented by Immanuel Kant and Soren Kierkegaard. Kants well-known work useful for our purposes is his Critique of Pure Reason (New York: The Humanities Press, 1950). For the less ambitious reader I recommend Kant: An Introduction (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978) by C.D. Broad, a more accessible account of Kants ideas. For Kierkegaard, see the

durable Fear and Trembling (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

CARITAS. One of the clearest expositions of caritas is found in the

New Testament in the book of Luke. For a more formalized description,

295

Augustines The City of God (New York: Modern Library, 1950) is an

excellent introduction. Kierkegaards Works of Love (New York: Harper and Row, 1962) is a clear and profound statement on the truer meaning of love, while one of the best explanation of differing kinds of love, as well as an excellent discussion of Augustines caritas, is in Anders

Nygrens Agape and Eros (New York: Harper and Row, 1953. A lyrical York; Image, 1955) of Thomas Kempis. An updated interpretation of

yet practical account is the once-influential The Imitation of Christ (New the great commandment is given in M.C. DArcys The Mind and Heart

of Love (New York: Henry Holt, 1947), a work of sound if somewhat dry

British scholarship. Another scholarly but bold and approachable work is Joseph Fletchers Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), in which he must yield to the only true principle, action through love (agape, or as we have called it, caritas). Much fine work has been done by Martin Buber, of the person within is offered in Between Man and Man (New York: whose conception of authentic interaction based on the selfless revelation Macmillan, Thou (New York : Scribner, 1970). Buber of persuasively argues that even moral principles and what we consider right

all the modern writers may be one of the closest to describing the essence of

296

love but there is no lack of attempts from other fields, some having no such ambition but which fall into our province nevertheless. Jurgen Habermas looks toward the creation of what he calls communicative action to

provide a truer unfolding of persons in a dialogical rather than monological 1979). Also distinctly non-spiritual in tone is Carl Rogers On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), which might be taken as a

exchange in Communication and the Evolution of Society (Boston: Beacon,

humanistic manifesto of the altruistic ethic. Practical results of caritas are King, Jr. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1968), edited by James M.

explored in A Testament of Hope; The Essential Writings of Martin Luther Washington, while a more personal appraisal is Kings The Strength to

Love (New York: Harper and Row, He was influenced, of course, by Mohandas Gandhi. See Gandhis All Men Are Brothers (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). A penetrating study of Gandhis

principles and how far one is able to carry them is found in Fighting with considers, for example, if one could love ones enemies even in the Norman Cousins Albert Schweitzers Mission New York: Norton, other volumes on Schweitzer. For a synthesis of caritas not

Gandhi (New York; Harper and Row, 1984) by Mark Juergensmeyer, who camps, the Warsaw ghetto, etc. Another fine account of caritas in practice is 1985), which is illuminating and respectful without fawning, unlike some

297

restricted to the human community, see Herbert Eliot Frenchs Love of Earth perceptive work. For a valuable caveat, see Germaine Greers (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1973), a popularized but extremely

excellent discussion of altruism as a scam encouraging women toward

self-sacrifice for the benefit of men, or for their own benefit as an act of

commerce, in The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971). For a view of altruism from a practical as opposed to spiritual point of view, see Robert Axlerods The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984), demonstrating through game theory how selfless behavior can influence others to cooperate, thus benefitting all.

THE INTERCONNECTED COSMOS. So-called primitive religions and as their foundation, all being manifestations of universal spirit or energy. The West has drifted away from this conceptual holism, first through monotheism, which focused the sacred in one discrete being, and

religions of the East have traditionally had the interrelationship of all things

later science and scientism, breaking up the world into separate and often seemingly unrelated units. Yet in recent decades a growing number of books from various disciplines have appeared, repudiating this arbitrary us. Rationalism itself is coming to terms with a broader and more

fragmentation and reaffirming the wholeness of life and the world around profound conception of the universe. Douglas Hofstadters Godel,

Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Basic Books, 1979) is an exploration of the patterns, repetitions, and interconnections of life through mathematics, art, and music, although with the natural scientists reticence to speculate about essence. Physics is an area

where vast reformulations are occurring. Some popular accounts by the and The Turning Point; Science, Society, and the Rising Culture (New

physicist Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics (Berkeley: Shambhala, 1975) York: Simon and Schuster, 1982) demonstrate the correlation between the

298

mysticism of the East and the latest discoveries in high-energy

physics, with implications for the future. The climatologist Stephen Schneider writes of the interrelationships in the natural sphere and Genesis Strategy; Climate and Global Survival (New York: Delta, contends that we must redefine our relationship to the natural world in The 1977) and with Lynn Morton in The Primordial Bond (New York: Plenum, 1981). The economist E.F. Schumacher shows the need to recognize the and ecological survivalin Small Is Beautiful; Economics as if People in the anthropologist Gregory Batesons Mind and Nature (New York: interrelated world when considering economic systemsfor psychological Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1973). Holism is also represented

Bantam, 1988). In The New Biology (Boston: Shambhala, 1987), Robert the case that cooperation, not survival of the fittest, is in fact the rule

Augros and George Stanciu recognize natural interconnections in making of Nature. The microbiologist and philosopher Rene Dubos adds a spark and ends with a warning which is best summed up by the title of

of divinity to the mix in The God Within (New York: Scribners Sons, 1972) his last chapter, Arcadian Life versus Faustian Civilization. In the Jastrow also shows how the divine spark permeates much of the

slim volume God and the Astronomers (New York: Norton, 1978), Robert

299

profoundest cosmological thinking, from Einstein to Edmund Whittaker and Edward Milne. Essays and dialogues about the work of Stanford neurosurgeon Karl Pribram, the British physicist David Bohm and others are found in The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes (Boulder, Co.: Shambhala, 1982), edited by Ken Wilber, lending hard-science support to the spiritual foundations of life. In his well-written A Sense of the Cosmos; The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truths (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), Jacob Needleman rightly cautions nurtured in us first.

that the necessary infusion of the divine into science is impossible until it is The spiritual point of view itself is well-represented in a great number

of books, and well limit ourselves to just a few. Emerson, although the subject of some criticism for what seems today to be his naive belief in a benevolent Providence (due in part to his career unfolding before the sobering ideas of Darwin hit the international scene), was among the most prolific. A good collection of his ideas can be found in Selected Writings (New

York: Modern Library, 1950), edited by Brooks Atkinson. A wonderful

book on the flowering of parallel works on the spiritual life emerging in a burst of optimism, faith, and wonder in 1830s America is Perry Millers The Transcendentalists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967). A

visionary forerunner before the Age of Reason was opening its seductive door 1967), edited by Geoffrey

was William Blake; see Songs of Innocence and Experience (New York: Orion,

300

Keynes, or the collection, Complete Poetry and Prose of William Blake (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor, 1982), edited by David Erdman. A vastly (New York; Houghton Mifflin, 1978) is rich in natural science and underrated writer is Guy Murchie, whose The Seven Mysteries of Life philosophywith a thread of the spiritual subtly woven throughout. A kindred Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1975), emphasizing that a metaphysics must be possible. Also see his Mans Place in Nature (New York: Harper and

view is expressed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in Toward the Future (New York: underpin our actions so that a drawing closer of human consciousness might Row, 1966), where he presents the case that even as biological creatures

we need a spiritual environmentto see the truer reality of our place in the world. Franz Rosenzweig takes a look at Judaism, Islam and Christianity in order to seek out their mystical unity in The Star of Redemption (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). Carl Jung also explored the

underlying unity of the many realities we experience; a good treatment is

his Civilization in Transition, already cited. Chroniclers of the New Age

are slowly, if begrudgingly, being given a legitimate place in the literature. (Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, 1980) observes the gradual awakening to a

Marilyn Fergusons popular and well-researched The Aquarian Conspiracy universe of shared dreams and responsibilities. A similar theme is explored in Theodore Roszaks Unfinished Animal: The Aquarian Frontier and the Evolution of Consciousness (New York: Harper and Row, 1975). And a very thought-provoking volume by David Spangler, Towards a Planetary Vision age philosophies which once again affirms the reality and importance of the spiritual life and its centrality to cosmology at every level. Finally, (Forres, Scotland: Findhorn, 1977), arrives at a synthesis of new and ancient

no discussion on works about spirituality is complete without mention of Carlos Casteneda, including The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way subsequent A Separate Reality (New York: Pocket Books, 1971). of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968) and his

THE SIMPLE LIFE. Here we should probably rest and let the reader draw his

301

or her own conclusions. Just a few eclectic volumes will be mentioned in closing. A very interesting historical overview can be found in David Shis The Simple Life; Plain Living and High Thinking in American

Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). We might also go back to Emerson for some nourishing food for thought in his Society and Solitude (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921), particularly the first two chapters; also excellent but increasingly unread is his well-known essay, Self-Reliance, found in Essays and Lectures (New York: Literary Classics, 1983), edited by Joel Porte. For a beautiful account of simplicity, faith and determination, there is Peace Pilgrim; Her Life and Works in Her Own Words (Santa Fe, N.M.: Ocean Tree, 1982). The courage to choose hope over despair and live the simple lifeand it does take couragemight be strengthened by the work of Paul Tillich, especially his respected The the need for courage in the face of even meaninglessness or death, to be

Courage to Be (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952). Tillich confirms gotten through an individual and mystical encounter with God rather than through the collectivism of organized faiths. Finally, we conclude with a mention of a deeply disturbing yet ultimately optimistic and inspiring book by the psychiatrist Viktor Frankl, Mans Search For Meaning (New York: Washington Square, 1967), an account of his time spent as a prisoner at

Auschwitz and his discovery that when everything else is stripped away, one finds unforeseen meaning in the simpler, quieter, profounder things: subtle

302

images, insights and exchanges that go unrecognized when the noise of life as usual imposes itself so seductively on us.

as a spark to ignite the brighter light within, is illustrated in a simple story told by the Indian teacher Hari Dass. There once was a parrot who lived with a wise man and from him learned to say, Watch out for the trap! Dont get caught in the trap! One day the wise man came home and found that someone had left the door open and the parrot had flown away. He searched all around, and soon heard the parrot calling out, he saw that the parrot was caught in the trap, and was trapped.

The danger of getting knowledge from books, unless they act

Watch out for the trap! Dont get caught in the trap! When he drew near,

303
Contact: katryrain@gmail.com