I Will Prevail

It is clear to me by now that we humans descend from animals, which in turn descend from simpler life forms, which in turn descend from a single element. What has also become clear to me is this: it no longer serves a useful purpose to separate ourselves morally or spiritually from a wolf, from an amoeba, or from hydrogen. Our attempt to create dual and separate realities has reached a saturation point, with no significant value added to our lives.

One of the earliest existential pragmatisms I can think of, addressing our obsession with dualism, is that of the yin yang – the ancient Chinese (Taoist / Daoist) notion that first sought to consolidate the existence of opposite forces in our lives. The basic premise of the yin yang is coexistence: we must learn to live in the balance of good and evil, of right and wrong, and with any other significant but opposite forces in life.

Judaism identified a similar thought process. Rabbi Harold Kushner explains it this way: “Jewish theology teaches that God has planted in us something called the yetzer hara. Loosely translated it’s an ‘evil impulse’, but I don’t like that translation because it implies that God makes things that are evil. It is the egotistical principle, the human capacity for selfishness, for doing things that are not ‘right’. The fascinating thing about that teaching is that you cannot be a complete human being without it. You need an ego to go out and do things, to make things ‘happen’. Had I been given the opportunity I would not have voted for Mother Theresa to represent me in Congress. That’s because you can be a saint, or you can be an effective politician, but you can’t be both. That is not a knock on politicians, it is really a knock on saints.”

While Rabbi Kushner’s explanation of yetzer hara seems to be aligned with the Taoist take on dualism, what’s intriguing to me is the following comment: “I don’t like that translation [“evil impulse”] because it implies that God makes things that are evil.” If I didn’t know better I would say that the good Rabbi is struggling with the notion that we should be trying to balance good and evil. Which brings me to the evolution of yin yang and yetzer hara from the point of view of another major philosophy / religion: Christianity.

Christianity created the mutually exclusive duality of heaven and hell, and, pardon the pun but all hell broke loose. It was one of the most dramatic milestones in our evolution up to that point. The bar had been raised to a seemingly unattainable height. Paradigm shift, game-changer, new rule: the time had come for all good men to choose a single moral ground; you are no longer allowed to lead a double life with yin and with yang. Not to be accused of a cruel and unusual directive, the founding fathers of Christianity offered a paradox “safe house” – a limbo if you will – so that the mere mortal would not self-destruct in an impossible expectation: they called it “original sin”.

So where are we, two-thousand years later? Well, there has been some great thinking in recent times, stemming from a part of the world that is not far from where Taoism began. In fact, I wonder if we are not close to approaching a proverbial full circle. Thought leaders such as the Dalai Lama have declared that the good-evil paradox is not a duality at all. As they see it, existential opposites are part of the same essence. It is not about coexistence, it is about transformation. You don’t have to coexist with evil – in its more mundane form of anger, negativity, greed, selfishness, etc; and you don’t have to renounce it either, unless you want to amputate your soul. What you can do is transform it. You can harness it.

I have come to agree with these new-paradigm gurus. One of our most basic animal instincts, that messy side of us which presumably served a “survival of the fittest” purpose, is not there to be renounced. It is not there for mere coexistence. Not any more than gasoline sits in a fuel tank to coexist with the car. As Rabbi Kushner would say, you need it to do things, to make things happen. I should add, I believe the Rabbi is right about that, but for the wrong reason.

Survival dictates that you choose the dark side over anything that threatens your existence. Coexistence requires that you learn to live with your dark side, in an unsustainable duality. But mere survival and coexistence seem to have fallen short of relevance for me now, when I think about the ultimate pursuit of a higher intelligence. As American author William Faulkner said during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, “Mankind will not merely survive – it will prevail.” I believe the kind of post-survival world that Mr. Faulkner was referring to requires that we successfully harness our dark side into a productive energy. I don't believe he was talking about a world where we add or subtract realities at will, in a zero-sum game. That would be mere survival, or coexistence at best. And the trouble with indefinite coexistence is that it's just a heartbeat away from codependence – a slippery slope back to mere survival.

I suppose like anything else in evolution, soul-searching is the way to start on this journey, should it bite you as well. One thing seems to be holding true for me thus far: once you’ve had a taste for the power of prevailing, any other option seems inadequate.

So survive if you must, and coexist if you can. I have no choice but to prevail.