Surprise surprise - isn't this by any chance what sets humans apart? Except perhaps our ability to perceive ourselves as having some God-given destiny?
Previous posts in this series:
<<<>>>
Out of the drawer for today:
What Distinguishes Humankind
So we are all animals? - to a point, I dare say, yes
Two forks later...
...it is a threesome that we have!
In this whole process of coming into being, of being shaped from clay - or as some dare put it, in stepping through thefphases of evolution, as we can see more clearly through modern eyes, there appears to have been different manifestations of us, each equipped with what made us successful survivors in specific scenarios, populated with different competitors for resources and for space.
Our true history is likely quite complex, but for the fun of it, and for the sake of painting a simple picture that might just contribute a little to us understanding ourselves a bit better, I will dare to simplify our development as follows:
The Animal Phase
This may be where it all started...a phase in which survival of the fittest had more complex and able species survive in different niches; but it is also a phase in which herding showed its advantages - an age in which the formation of social structures had it's roots...where mutual guardianship had individuals survive better whithin communities than whithout the protection of these natural social structures.
The Humanizing Phase
Now in this phase, one may guess, it is possible that cognition matured to the extent that social behaviour became an objectively contrived strategy, where we objectively started seeing the advantages of being part of a community as opposed to attempting to survive as individuals in the wild and maybe even had success in strenthening communities by deliberately cooperating and incorporating synergy of specialised skills and talents to the advantage of the community as a whole...who knows?
We may even have had great success and maybe even started seeing ourselves as masters of nature, destined to be not only mutual guardians amongs ourselves, but also guardians of nature as the pantry supplying our means of survival. Maybe we where not at that stage capable of an objective philosophy with such a clearly defined objective; maybe it was only so that an opportunity for that kind of relationship between us and nature then became manifest as a future option.
Maybe this was the age of Eden. Maybe this is also where we developed a taste for quality of life so powerful that obtaining a good qualty of life started competing in importance as a goal in itself, with the matter of survival, so strongly that it in fact led to the next phase in the development of what we are today:
Enter The Snake
A slumbering virus finds fertile ground...
A stable condition, with more talent going round in large and safe communities than is required to be vigilant for the sake of survival, may just have been where our by now dormant skills for survival in the wild became aware of opportunities very much akin to the opportunities for survival in the wild, but with the difference that the goal in facilitating those opportunities became perverted from being survival at the cost of natural enemies to being enhancement of own quality of life at the cost of fellow human beings - the birth of evil...the manifestation of Satan as a spirit of exploitation in our midst!
Conclusion
And there we have it, a subconscious threesome: animal, man and monster, all part and parcel of our mental make-up.
And isn't it interesting how the sequential coming into being of these parts in this narrative matches the sequence of events in the Scriptural mythology we are all familiar with? Does this perhaps tell us that what is written in those ancient scripts is more fact that fiction - that perhaps the author(s) of those scripts had a perfectly valid scientific understanding of our origin?
Be that as it may - what is pretty clear from this understanding is that our greatest enemy resides within us, and that "chaining down the devil/monster/evil spirit" right within us makes perfect sense, that is, if we wish to obtain a perfect, peaceful, 'heavenly' quality of life.
And does this story perhaps tell us that what distinguishes us from, physiologically speaking, 'the rest of the animal kingdom', is that we crave quality of life nearly as much as life itself, and that is in this craving that our temptation for exploiting one another lies?
Please comment an tell me what you think of this perception - I would really like to hear if it makes sense for you as well!
Thanks for reading!
- more to follow...
<<<>>>
Blessings!
Images : Kudos to Paint X for providing the software!
Photos, if any : Own
Some interesting points.
As for the old testament holding truths...what if it started off as articles composed by scientist/philosophers, who foreseaw their knowledge is to be lost, so they preserved it in a form that less sophisticated societies would understand and treasure.
Does your article above mean we are beginning to approach their level, so that is why we are able to recognise what they did - and the why?
As for quality of life. It is too broad a term for one answer.
I want luxuries while also enjoying security and all the basic comforts? Then I can turn evil, for I might see it as providing me with what I want.
Quality of life in a more cerebral manner [as is enjoyed by philosophers and people who want a world which approaches the ideal?].
Then we cannot allow evil - apart from the first lot, who might see it as the opportunity to take advantage of our dreams (a good example would be Al Gore - who has turned out to be totally rotten at core, not caring if he destroys civilization, as long as he can take advantage of the good in others and it serves to help him grow in wealth and power).
I think so yes, about Scriptures.
I find it hard to believe that there did not exist civilizations more sophisticated than ours in times long gone by. How else could we have obtained the ability to adapt so quickly to developments, gain 'new' insights so easily? It feels more like we are regaining ground lost before, maybe through some major disaster.
A heavenly existence appears to be our classic perception of the ultimate in quality of life, i.e., a perfectly peaceful, perfectly comfortable, perfectly honest environment within which the resources for fulfilling our needs are freely available. What we can strive to obtain in this world in terms of quality of life, I guess is as close an approximation of this as we can achieve. It is a socio-economic rather than a purely economic concept, as the most important ingredient is peace.
My perception of evil is in short exploitation, that is, enhancing your own quality of life at the cost of the quality of life of others, or otherwise put, transgressing the "love thy neighbor as thyself" rule. In this perspective, it would not be evil to obtain any luxury, on condition that obtaining that luxury does not negatively affect the quality of the live of other people, neither in this or following generations.
I hope my explanations make sense my friend. We live in a complex world, with our perception of it made more difficult by a facade of deceit veiling just about everything we need to know in order to escape from the very cleverly devised socio-economic structure within which the vast majority of us are being exploited for the benefit of a tiny minority. We can only engineer our way out of this if we have a clear understanding of the whole setup, and getting there isn't an easy ride.
In my story, Samantha hates the idea of tomes of laws and rules and looks to find a single rule - and she evolves a way of thinking that is accepted by others. the rule is simpler than the 'love thy neighbour'.
It states "It is my duty to protect you from myself."
If everyone applies that rule, we do not need to worry about defending ourselves.
I think the "love thy neighbour as thyself" may be a little hazy because of the terminology used. I think it is a little more abstract way of putting is, but to my mind it says exactly the same.
Maybe it was written, or translated, this way to obscure it a little, perhaps to hide this powerful principle from the common people. Something people deliberately tend to overlook is the fact that the Bible as we know it was put together by a Roman emperor and that emperors are emperors. What emperor would want to loose control over his subjects by encouraging them to apply a simple principle in their own right, that will empower them to say no when he orders them to take up their swords?
As you imply, by applying only this law and by having all man made rules comply with this principle, we can have perfect order and peace in this world.
has almost nothing to do with the rule I advocated. Protecting others from me, if everyone follows that rule, means there is no one to fear or defend yourself from.
EDIT
Why I say this is because there are a great many people who do not love themselves - having them apply this rule you mention would be catastrophic to everyone else.
I see your point @arthur.grafo. You express exactly the desired limits on one's behavior in an unambiguous rule. Kudos for that!
I think the confusion here arises from the fact that there does not exist a word in English that can serve as a proper translation of the original Greek word "agapē" in this context. A more correct translation of what stands both in and between the lines of the original statement may read something like this: "have an unconditional respect for your neighbor's right to have a fulfilling life in the same sense as you expect an unconditional respect for your own right to have a fulfilling life", which is a very involved and clumsy statement, to say the least. This crude example of mine can certainly be improved upon, but I trust you get the drift.
Unfortunately the English word "love" has a selfish quality about it, especially in the popular tongue, more akin to 'desire', while the meaning of the original Greek "agapē", or 'unconditional love', leans more toward meaning 'unconditional respect' in this context.
My guess is that the translators chose to translate "agapē" with "love" in order not to lose the notion of 'compassionate empathy' for having a presence in the translated sentence, which would be the case ending up with just a stark military rule of behavior.
Just my guess. Please do not believe a single word I say, as my words are only those of a simple human being trying to find his way. You are welcome, however, to take whatever you hear or see to your inner room, where only your mind, your heart, your soul and your Maker are present, to judge what is right and what is wrong.
An interesting point you may not have heard.
Empathy in Greek is (?) empathia?
It certainly looks like the word Empathy comes from Empathia doesn't it...but
Empathia is exactly the opposite of Empathy. It means you have no empathy.
I wonder how that happened.
Will sure follow up!
Congratulations @clicketyclick! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard: