Predator and Prey
Moral values arise from an arbitrary line we draw between what is socially acceptable and what is not. I imagine any die-hard moralist might well find this an immoral view.
However, historical experience shows the moral line moves profoundly over time and geography. Morality draws its line somewhere along the food chain between the user and the used — predator and prey. Moreover, it depends upon which of these two poles the moralist identifies.
Vietnamese eat dog, Swedes eat horse, yet both practices are probably illegal in America. Abortion and the death penalty, in particular, exemplify morality’s moving line in the sand. Chapter 2 speaks to the arbitrary, co-generating quality of morality’s good vs. evil…
Truth-be-told, human morality is simply an emergent property of natural morality occurring throughout nature, especially noticeable in social mammals. What we deem acceptable and what is not acceptable is obviously a predator vs. prey issue. However, this power play in human culture is typically more subtle, hidden behind veils of rationalization. Nevertheless, doesn’t it still boil down to this simple principle: good = what attracts me; evil = what repels me. Put another way, good is what I like; bad is what I dislike.
If It Isn’t Evil, Then What Is It?
Horrific man-made events that fill the news are particularly disturbing and easily inexplicable. We evoke the devil or evil to explain the inexplicable. Fortunately, there appears to be an improving recognition that these acts are not evil, but rather the acts of emotionally unstable people.
However, warfare, rape of the environment, and many other injustices that have followed humanity throughout its history are not the result of emotional instability. In many of these cases, it is just the ruthless pursuit of what one individual or group wants. Obviously, this describes thieves perfectly. The thief is just taking what he wants without any qualms about his victim (1). Doesn’t this thief vs. victim dynamic also apply to predator vs. prey? The act of taking always requires a thing taken from. Any gain here necessitates a complimentary loss there, which describes the food chain. Whether it is moral or not is just a matter of social convention. This is why Taoism has little use for morality. D.C. Lau put it well in chapter 79: It is the way of heaven to show no favoritism. Conversely, human morality, at least at the self-righteous, hypocritical, and partisan level, clearly amounts to playing favorites.
Escaping the Food Chain
Stepping back for a broader view, I see our species at the very top of the Earth’s food chain. If any species gets in our way, we destroy it. If any species serves our needs, we exploit it. We have cleverly managed to position ourselves at a point in nature where, like thieves, we apparently don’t need to pay our way. We can take what we want and give back as little as we wish. Our natural predators are now mostly bacteria and viruses, and we do are best to eradicate those that harm us. I imagine, had other animals the capacity to judge us objectively, they would all consider our rapacious behavior dreadfully immoral (2).
We are clearly hell-bent on evading the food chain entirely! Does this feel balanced? Would nature abide this out-of-balance situation? I say “No way!” Simply put, we cannot outmaneuver nature because nature is the crucible in which we exist.
Nature balances our imbalance
It helps me to see the malevolent acts of humanity as a form of self-predation. We’ve succeeded in eliminating our natural predators like lions, wolves, and such. On top of that, we have become the planet’s most proficient predator… thanks to our creative use of tools. As a result, we have severely upended natural balance. Self-predation would be a natural rebalancing consequence of this imbalance, with war being the most efficient form of self-predation. At the other end of the scale are the deranged acts of emotionally unbalanced people. The emotionally unbalanced people end up serving the role of predator, standing in for the natural predators we have wiped out. Their emotional instability is a consequence of humanity becoming increasingly out of step with natural balance… especially post the Agricultural Revolution, 12,000 BCE. This instability will undoubtedly increase dramatically with the advent of the Electricity Revolution. (See And Then There Was Fire, p.296 and The Good Old Days p.459.)
Is it possible to avoid the injustices that disturb societal harmony? How can we as long as we feel we deserve all we can get, yet pay as little in return as we can get away with. We’ve even institutionalized this as a ‘God given right’ to take what we want. ‘Peace on earth’ has been a dream of humanity throughout history, yet when the rubber hits the road, we want what we want, we want it now, and we want it free—if at all possible!
Similarly, environmentalists dream of being good stewards of the environment. A closer look reveals the fact that their noble plans seldom, if ever, threaten their own economic survival self-interests. Survival necessity rules nature show! As soon as environmentalists find themselves in seriously deprived circumstances, their rising survival needs will blind them to their egalitarian ideals — and naturally so!
We are just animals, albeit with an outsized capacity to innovate. Being animals, biology determines our behavior. Needs and fears pull the strings. Again, nature, and biology in particular, is the crucible of our existence. When need and fear are quiescent, we can imagine ideal scenarios where we can have our cake and eat it too. When gritty reality awakes us, we find nature pushing back at every turn. The more we resist, the more nature will push back to maintain balance. I suppose we only realize this no-win situation through a lifetime of experience. Nature balances our imbalance—there is no escaping this natural law.
A Bird in the Hand Is Worth Two in the Bush
If averting global warming turns out to require any profound reduction in our standard of living, very few people would actually be willing to do what is necessary. Simply put, we care much more about current gains and losses than the promise or threat of future gains and losses, i.e., “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. Even now, with only minor costs to us, there is little will to lessen our future impact on the environment. We only act when we really feel pushed into a corner. Generally, we only react to actual threats we experience, not ones we imagine or can even scientifically predict. The disasters happen, then we prepare! This is just a biological reality. Chapter 16 puts it straightforwardly, Not knowing the constant, rash actions lead to ominous results. Yes, we can know the constant to some extent, but because it’s indescribable, we only sense it gradually through life-long experience.
Nothing is truly going to change until the time comes when we are mature enough, as a species, to acknowledge our ignorance. As chapter 71 notes, not knowing this knowing is disease. Our lack of emotional maturity is our problem. In a sense, our intellect’s cleverness is out of balance with our emotional intelligence (3). We innately want something for nothing. In the wild, nature’s ruthless side always counterbalances this innate urge. Our clever use of tools allows us to evade many of those balancing forces… for a while anyway. What will it take to become mature enough as a species? A radical increase in human longevity might do it.
(1) Do you see the seedbed of hypocrisy here? Taking what we want without any qualms defines us all at some level. Even the eating of plants amounts to killing and taking without qualms. This applies to all animal life on earth. Thus, any lines we draw are arbitrary. Being honestly straightforward about this is the only way to avoid hypocrisy. Everyone acknowledges that hypocrisy is problematic, so why is admitting our role in this so difficult? In the end, we can only see what we need to see. Straight and honest words seem inside out (#78) if they contradict what we desire.
(2) The shame of this lies more in the ignorance and arrogance than in the actions. The “I deserve it” sense of entitlement is embedded in humanity’s spiritual paths. For example, the Christian view that we are God’s favorite animal, or the Eastern view that we’re endowed with superior levels of consciousness… a hierarchy of consciousness. Obviously, if we had a humble, less species-centric view, we might be more reverent and less rapaciousness.
(3) Raw mental intelligence (I.Q.?) appears to be an innate genetic endowment, nature more than nurture. Either that or it just develops much faster than emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence (E.Q.) appears to be mostly a learning process, influenced by circumstances in youth — nurture more than nature — and evolves steadily over our lifetime. (See Counterbalancing I.Q., p.372)
Think of us as hunter gather animals Mike. Out of instinct we will keep hunting for food. If well feed already, we will then seek for whatever passes as most important to us… our ‘food for the soul’. For those like you and me, understanding is that food.
Granted, it can take a while to find that kind of food that fills our soul’s belly. But, even then, the hunter and gather instinct drives us to keep looking. I reckon that is why I keep observing and finding new connections–constantly. It helps to adjust our expectations about what is possible to find, ‘food’-wise. Therein lies the value of the Tao Te Ching. Consider these chapters for example:
The greatest heights exist below what we realize, (This puts definite limits on what we can cognitively realize)
When understanding reaches its full extent, can you know nothing? (what is “its full extent”? I see this as referring to the subjective “extent”, and not some enlightened ideal / myth we initially may lust for.
You’re right! I am uncomfortable with the mystery, and never realized it until I read your words. I don’t know that I’m focused on perfection (maybe …I’ll reflect on that …) but I do try to understand. In the abstract i forget that “understanding” is probably just another social construct …but in practice I keep trying to get it all. To get into the “flow” in life, I need to get comfortable with not understanding …and probably not trying to figure out everything. Thanks for that, Carl. I never realized it.
Mike
Observation is a fine line that we cross when we start clinging to what we see. That emotional dynamic destroys our impartiality… the ‘flow’. Your observations suggestion you are on the way more than a path preferred. I’d guess you are uncomfortable with the mystery… fear most primal and silent, which also shows you are on the way, and not unduly smothering that discomfort with pleasures that any particular path offers. And/Or perhaps you are seeking perfection? In any case, each advantage we have in life is counterbalance by its complementary downside (a downside we ceaselessly struggle to circumvent). Natual justice I call it.
Finally, the wonderful thing about aging is that the view becomes broader and simpler. You can’t rush this reward; it accumulates through our experience. The beauty of life is that as everything else falls apart (the pains of old age) the mind’s eye can see the ‘secrets’ of life, although hidden in plain sight, youth can’t truly see. Again, Natural justice!
Of course, you’re welcome! Afterwards we’ll have a beer, cook something on the fire, and sort out the world’s problems. 😉
Carl,
I remember when I was practicing regularly in the dojo that sometimes I got “into the zone” (in balance?) and didn’t think about what I was doing …I was relaxed in my strikes and blocks …I wasn’t thinking. Then, I would get excited about how well I was doing, start thinking about it , and get my ass kicked. I admit to feeling that way sometimes in corresponding with you. I feel out of my depth …just like when I try to keep up with Sensei in the dojo.
I read your earlier post on the symptom point of view …it really resonates with me. I really try to look at all behavior – mine and others – in terms of what need is it trying to fulfill, and I seldom (compared to earlier in life) judge behavior as good or bad in broad terms. I might look at a behavior as “bad” for society, or “bad” for me …but the behavior itself is just what that person needs to do in that moment.
I’ll let the rest cook a bit, I guess. Maybe if I stop trying so hard to understand, clarity will come.
I live on the east coast, but travel to CA not infrequently … I hope to arrange one of my trips soon so I can attend your Sunday meeting. If I’m welcome …
Mike
We must stipulate that by “balance”, I mean the subjective sense of this: a sense of personal comfort and not some ‘cosmic’ state of balance. (i.e., The cosmos is in perfect balance always.) Stewing for months, or a life time, will leave you feeling emotional dissonance, unresolved—”unbalanced”.
“Transcend”? That word conveys a sense of: go beyond, surpass, rise above, exceed, (and other such synonyms). If fact, the “intellectual” trails, follows, shadow, traces, the visceral. The visceral is the dog that wags the tail of intellect (cognition)… always, although this can be extremely subtle like now as I write this reply. In other words, what is not rooted in the core instinct? Or, what is instinct, really? The word only taps the surface. Try to consider this word, “instinct” as a symptom rather than a phenomenon in its own right.
The “visceral part of revenge” gives meaning to any subsequent thought with a context of revenge. Without the visceral part, the word “revenge” is but a sound, like the chirp of a bird, or a doodle on paper. The only meaning it can convey is created by the emotional experience (remembered feelings) we connect with the word. The word then gives an objective quality to the feeling, which allows us to rekindle the emotion and thus dwell on it long-term (hold grudges).
That is true of words (the intellectual cognitive side of life) overall, but especially emotion words—love is a good example. This means that if you’ve never felt revenge (or love) personally, then the word is an abstraction; the meaning you give it is not based in first hand experience, but rather draws from you have seen of the actions of others who reportedly acted out of revenge (or love). There is more to it than that, but you get the idea.
I think this would be more a case of competition than revenge. Revenge, as I perceive it, needs to have a social component, a kind of intimacy, personal, the other side of the coin from love perhaps. It just seems personal, where as, fighting off one’s competition can often be much less personal, if at all.
There is no substantive difference. The ‘ego’ that an ant experiences and the ‘ego’ that a human experiences is only different in worldly expression of ‘ego’. We think, dance, sing, etc. and feel sense of self; the ant walk around looking for sweets. ‘Ego’ is substance of life, survival intent at the core; the only difference is in style and expression. The difference between the ant and us is that we have coined a word, “survival” to symbolize and objectify the experience of ‘self’. The actual mystery of experience, of consciousness (non-personal, non-local, ‘eternal’) is the same in us and the ant.
Well Mike, that was certainly a mouthful of words. Hope some of it makes sense. One last thought: perceptions of difference are illusionary in that they arise more from ‘self’. The perceptions of sameness (‘profound sameness‘) convey more truth in that they arise from universal, no-personal-agenda consciousness
/~\
c
Ok ….
So I think what you are offering is that if – in the heat of the moment I act on feelings of revenge, I’m in balance. Conversely, if I stew about revenge for months, and plot how to “get someone back” for a slight, I’m out of balance, as the “threat” is no longer “real” but only an intellectual contrivance. I’ll buy that.
I think there is a visceral part of revenge, however, that transcends the intellectual and may last months/days/years. I believe that it may be rooted in the core survival instinct …revenge, in us “higher” critters, can be an emotion that persists out of a foundational need to compete …and survive.
The fastest lion gets the gazelle [yes, I know, lions are shameless thieves but cut me some artistic slack here …:-)] and the strongest lion gets the lionesses … so the lion attacks the interloping male because in evolutionary terms it is a threat. We may hold feelings of anger/revenge in the same way …it is less about the slight of the moment, and more about our perception that the foe somehow threatens us …thus, we wanna bite him.
Maybe it isn’t all about old, dead stories … surely a lot of it is, but maybe …sometimes …it is about our need to be on top. Not an ego need, but a visceral, inborn need to win.
I pass the turn respectfully to you, Sensei.
M
Mike
Hi Mike, Yes that was a good investigation into morality—always on-going in one way or another. So, you say…
Absolutely natural! This is what all animals (especially the ‘higher one’) share. Emotion is the biological current that powers, drives, and directs our thoughts. Emotion is the grist that gives meaning to words and language.
Revenge is an emotion that all ‘higher’ animals (or maybe all animals, and even plants—who knows) feel. Animals respond spontaneously to events that trigger their social or survival instincts.
We do the same thing! The difference is that the human brain is capable of creating a conscious experience in us that spans a seemingly real framework of past-present-future. So while any other animal would react to a perceived slight or threat rather instantly and ‘move on’, we are capable of maintaining the perception of slight or threat for days, week, years, centuries, and even millennia, as history shows.
This perceptional experience we face has similarities to the electro-magnetic reinforcement that keeps the photon ‘alive’ through space. Emotion is like the electric force; thought is like the magnetic force. The interaction of both sustains the electro-magnetic wave / photon. The interaction of emotion and thought, sustains the feely-thinky wave / word.
That said, the primary force is the electric force, which, through motion, generates a magnetic force. Likewise, emotion is the primary force which, through motion, generates thought. (The brain neurology provides the space for the motion of emotion.)
Not that this is how it actually is, but offers another way to view it to release our mind from the old dead stories of the past. Our species is in a kind of perceptual rut, and give the underlying processes, it is no wonder.
Your serve… 😉
Interesting post. Thanks Luke for those stages …it is an interesting progression.
Carl, once upon a time you and I had a dialogue about morality, and the man-made nature of it. (a bit ironic that you used a photo of a lion above, because that is the example we used in our conversation …)
I suppose you’d tell me revenge is a byproduct of man-made morality. I can accept that the Marathon bombers are not evil, that they just did what they thought/felt they had to. (of course, our society teaches that that IS evil, but we’ll leave that aside).
What about my disgust for their actions? Is that just my “morality filter” kicking in? In our long-ago conversation, we talked about the lion attacking the intruder not because he felt hate or jealousy, but because thats just what lions do.
Is all emotion “man-made?” Isn’t emotion natural?
Mike
Interesting stages Luke. “Consciousness” and “competence” are somewhat debatable ideals to me*. These alternates can be another way to look at it too.
1. Unconscious incompetence = ignorance
2. Conscious incompetence = lazy
3. Conscious competence = striving
4. Unconscious competence = knowing ignorance
*I see competence as being less about integrity, and more about cleverness and skill. Now, using my ‘yardstick of Nature’:
1. Nature doesn’t care about competence.
2. Nature is conscious.
3. All living things (including us) are of Nature.
Ha! I just Googled incompetence and the 4 stages was at the top of the list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence
I just happened to see this comment thread in my feed reader, and it reminded me of something I read recently. And then the very next day (today) I just happened to find the scrap of paper on which I had jotted down what I had read. I think it was a reference from something else, but it was written on page 61 of Buddha’s Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom. It’s “The Four Stages of _________” (Learning, perhaps? I didn’t write it down)
1. Unconscious incompetence
2. Conscious incompetence
3. Conscious competence
4. Unconscious competence
My interpretation:
1. We don’t know any better, and don’t know that we don’t know any better.
2. We know better, but since most behavior is ingrained to whatever extent and can’t be changed on a whim, we don’t do what we want to be doing. (This is the hardest and most discouraging stage of learning.)
3. We know better, and we’ve known better for long enough that our unconscious desires have shifted our brain and our behavior to some degree, through mindfulness of what we want.
4. It’s fully automatic and we don’t have to think about it. (Perhaps this paves the way for step #1 again?)
Hi Joe! I keep thinking my girlfriend and I are going to be driving through your home state this summer, but then I realize it’s only stupid ol’ Idaho. 😉
Amen! Well said. You’ve worked much of this out, yet left me a crumb to chew on…
Right Understanding is crucial. With that, balance comes naturally in time. The ‘purist’, driven by need and fear, wants to resolve the problem now. That was Buddha’s by-path initially, until he sat down and chilled a while. Ironically, wanting to fix what we feel (and subsequently think) is a problem creates larger problems. This is a very poignant part of being human.
There is nothing ‘evil’ about plastic or driving cars, per se. It is our ignorance of long-term consequences that comes back to bite us. Balanced, moderate use becomes more likely as understanding of consequences deepens… or as chapter 16 say:
…Not knowing the constant, rash actions lead to ominous results.
Knowing the constant allows, allowing therefore impartial,
Impartial therefore whole, whole therefore natural,
Natural therefore the way.
The way therefore long enduring, nearly rising beyond oneself.
The simplest way I’ve found is pondering ‘problems’ self-honestly enough until I see them as nature’s work in progress. This allow the world to appears good enough (even perfect) as it is. The imperfections I see, I realize are simply projections of my own needs and fears. Honestly owning up to that allows me to chill too. 🙂
Can I hear an Amen!? What you said Carl about “we want what we want, we want it now, and we want it free” has been at the heart of my view of human nature for quite awhile. I tried pointing this out to my 17 yr. old daughter, about a trip to England she’s going on. That she could stay home, and her moment to moment experiences wouldn’t be all that different.
My point was that we all may acknowledge what a “good” thing would be to do, ie. drive cars less, use less plastic, etc. Except when it gets in the way of what we want to do. Which of course I had to own up to doing it just as much as anybody else. I may drive a car less, use less plastic, but if I have somewhere I really want to go that’s farther than a bike ride, then I’ll probably go. Or I may do Chinese food takeout that comes in plastic, if I’m really hungry for that.
Which for me brings up a strong question – who’s the bigger “problem”, the one who doesn’t even realize the impact of their actions, or someone who thinks about it a lot, but still does what they want to do? (After all, if I wanted to totally take care of the planet, I’d go live in the woods with no tools, shelter, technology, etc. (I’d probably last 3-4 days!)