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.
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.
