Wednesday, June 20, 2012

The Mutated Self

Trey Smith


If you ask most people, one of the aspects of humans that is believed to differentiate our species from others is the conscious sense of self. We view ourselves as a distinct ego and everything else as being separate. For example, I -- this separate, distinct and unique being -- am sitting here in a "chair" pecking away on a "keyboard" in an upstairs "room" of my "house."

Humans contend that other life forms like dogs, butterflies and trees don't share this realm of self consciousness to a significant degree or at all. Of course, due to our inability to communicate in a meaningful way with other life forms, we really don't know if this belief is true or not. We merely accept it as truth on our own terms.

For the sake of this post, let's speculate that the above assumption indeed is true. Does this mean that humanity has been bestowed with a special gift...or could it be seen as an unfortunate mutation?

I think that the majority opinion holds that it is the former, not the latter. For the religious -- particularly Christians -- this sense of self and consciousness is what is meant when it is said that humanity was created in the image of God.

I am going to argue the opposite position. In my view, this sense of self and consciousness has resulted in our estrangement from the unity of existence. It is because of our sense of self that we fail to see the bonds that tie all things together.

Other life forms, not beset with this disability, view existence as a mosaic with an innate understanding that they are part of the overall tapestry. While each form -- particularly other mammals -- may possess preferences and wants, these are not specifically or uniquely "theirs." How could they be without a sense of self?

With no self to get in the way, they live out their lives within the natural flow of the unifying life process. They live, flourish and die not to meet "personal" ends, but to benefit the whole organism of the Grand Mystery.

Contrast this to humans. Our lives are fraught with self-imposed anxiety and misery as we try to push ourselves away from the interconnected web -- an effort that simply cannot and does not succeed. Try as we might, we can't separate ourselves from the laws and process of the cosmos.

This returns me to the tweaked question of the previous post: If a tree falls in a forest and someone IS around to hear it, but doesn't perceive the sound as such, does the sound still exist anyway?

If all things are a manifestation of the one and yet we humans cannot perceive it (as all other life forms do), does it really exist?

Phrased another way, is it imperative that humans perceive any aspect of existence in order for it to be real or true?

8 comments:

  1. It doesn't seem to me that other life forms perceive the unity, only we do - when we wake up to it. Animals etc., just live out their lives, no thought for the bigger picture. Our self awareness has caused us to distance us from the Oneness, but that distance also allows us to see the Oneness. Paradoxical! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yet Deb, if you see oneness, then that act is twoness and so one can not be 'seen'.

    Enjoyable post Trey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes but, the Unity of Oneness is from harmonizing the parts of Twoness - the puzzeling together of Duality.

      The Beauty of the Taoist world view is that self-awareness allows us to grow (harmonize) towards the Tao (True nature) not just be caught up by daily experiences of instinct & expressions of p'o (animal or basic nature).

      Delete
    2. Sounds good but: can you demonstrate how one, all that is, which is then by mistake seeing itself as two, can do anything to become one?

      Delete
    3. Twoness is akin to functionality - see it as the way an electron & a proton function together forming an atom.

      By perceiving Twoness as correlated, rather than mutually exclusive, the separatness of two is balanced by the ebb & flow (energy) of one. So, one at the same time as being two is one.

      Delete
  3. I think this clears up what you said before as you were previously inferring that someone could actually 'do' something to become one. Which is fallacy.

    Still very odd to ask people to imagine a proton and electron, things which we can not imagine or see at all :D

    Admittedly we can imagine the relationship but not all science agrees there are such 'things'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just read this on another blog -

    "I found that to be a part of the whole I had to also, paradoxically, be apart from the whole. For there is no symphony without separate instruments, no harmony without distinct notes, and no whole without separate parts." - Jack Haas

    http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2012/06/we-each-belong-to-the-energy-of-the-moment-jack-haas.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is a nice seeming insoluble philosophical idea that there must be a separate one to see the whole or parts to make up the whole but a little like adding one to infinity.

    oneness does not require us. Apparently it was here all along, previous to time even.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are unmoderated, so you can write whatever you want.