“So how did humans get out of
harmony with the world about them?”
“The answer to that question is
complicated because there are many reasons. Today humans have trouble living in
harmony within their own societies which were designed by them. Living in
harmony seems to go against human nature. Schopenhauer would say that humans
are inherently willful, and that willfulness is expressed in the behavior of
the societies they create. In other words, both individuals and societies are
essentially self-serving and that creates a setting of unending conflict.”
“I understand what you mean. Many
people take advantage of others. Still, in most people there’s a sense of
respect and proper behavior.”
“In cultures that embody those
values.”
“You mean the culture of a society
teaches people to respect others and even to value them? That respect doesn’t
come naturally.”
“That’s the case according to
thinkers such as Schopenhauer and Freud. Personally, I believe those values had
more clout in the past than they do today because they were backed up by the
belief in the sacred. Consider three conditions. I’ll use hunting an elephant
as an example. In the first case, the hunter believes that the elephant is a
person like himself, but wiser and more powerful, almost a sacred being. He
addresses the elephant as father elephant.
His attitude toward the elephant is one of awe and profound respect, and if his
people did not require meat from the elephant the hunter would allow the
elephant to live.”
“Did you make that up?”
“No. The story comes from a little
book titled Primitive Song by C.M.
Bowra. The hunter here is a West African Pygmy.”
“Primitive Song, C.M. Bowra. I’ll have to get that book.”
“Well then I’m certainly going to
have to introduce you to Mr. Sage the bookseller. He sells only used books and
would be the most likely to have the book. I doubt it’s even in print.”
“That would be great.”
“Okay, let’s look at a different
attitude toward the elephant. This time the hunter’s attitude toward the
elephant is purely practical. The elephant’s only value is that of being a food
source. The hunter couldn’t care less about its magnificence. It’s simply a
living thing or object.”
“You mean like the Japanese who
kill whales for food, which seems to me a really wicked thing to do?”
“Yes. To them the whale possesses
no more value than a can of tuna does to us. But my point here is that the
creature has now been reduced to it use value. There is nothing in the culture
to give it special nonmaterial value.”
“That’s pretty sad. So what is the
third condition?”
“This would be a situation where
the law is used to protect the elephant, but the interesting thing about the
law is that it doesn’t attribute a value to the object, though it may imply
value. It defines a relationship between a person and other persons or objects.
In that way it’s very abstract. The Pygmy culture, on the other hand,
attributes a specific inherent value to the elephant, characterized by the
epithet father elephant. That
cultural attitude is projected upon the elephant and becomes part of the
Pygmy’s perception of it—more like him
or her, rather than it, to the
Pygmy.”
“So culture influences our
perception.”
“Absolutely. If the culture
projects positive or negative values upon an object, the object is perceived as
possessing those values. And as we have seen, artists of the modern era often
disagreed with the values of their culture rather than celebrate them. In our
age of entertainment, I wish the artists we’ve been discussing had a greater
influence on society and its political leaders.”
“Well, art certainly influenced my
artist father. He grew up in New York City and the art he saw in the museums
convinced him to become an artist. He became a big fan of romantic landscape
painting, especially that of the Hudson River School. It’s really weird
thinking that he moved to New Mexico mostly because of those paintings and the
New Mexico paintings of Georgia O’Keeffe. If he hadn’t seen those paintings I
wouldn’t be here talking to you. I wouldn’t be at all.”
“Well then I’m very glad he saw
those paintings.”
“Yeah, me too. But let’s go back
to what you were saying about the law. We were talking about people having
difficulty living in harmony with nature, or society for that matter because
humans tend to be willful.”
“What occurred in the Garden of
Eden is a good place to begin.”
“You mean Eve’s disobeying God’s
law.”
“A brave girl standing up to God.
Jews and Christians blame Eve for creating disharmony by disobeying God.
Actually, God did that by imposing an unjust law on her and Adam.”
“You mean laws can create
disharmony rather than the other way around.”
“Bad laws can. There was a time in
the U.S. when the law supported slavery, which resulted in the Civil War.”
“What was the injustice in Eve’s
case?”
“Eve was curious because God made
humans curious. But then he denies her access to the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. That denied her from knowing right from wrong—which
is the basis of morality. Moral knowledge is the most important kind of
knowledge because without it one cannot act morally without knowing the
difference between good and evil. God prohibits such knowledge. And the harm
and discord that follow are caused by him, not Eve, not from her acquiring such
knowledge and sharing it with her boyfriend. The way I see it, God places
himself above the law by considering himself as the only one qualified to enact
laws. That he considers himself above moral law is illustrated by his unjustly
punishing all of humanity for the actions of humanity’s two neophytes. His
prohibiting knowledge would be emulated throughout history by religious and
secular totalitarian societies. Human morality declares collective punishment,
that is punishing the innocent along with the guilty, as immoral. Yet, he
engages in collective punishment repeatedly and even punishes people who have
committed no crime but simply belong to a different culture”
“So the first law was an unjust
law.”
“That has created disharmony even
up to this day especially for women by justifying their oppression. The Bible
is the greatest source of unjust laws, one of which got Jesus crucified.”
“But law is supposed to create
harmony rather than disharmony.”
“What you say raises an important
point. Morality must determine what laws are just and unjust, not God, no
authoritarian for that matter. Humans must decide what is right for themselves,
not just for a few but for all. By eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge
of good and evil, Eve enable humans to morally judge even the actions of God.”
“So what about harmony? Eve
discovered morality for us so we can judge the law, but social harmony still
seems illusive. Are there other ways to reduce aggression, which seems to be
the greatest source of disharmony?”
“It seems to me the only really
good solution is to attribute value to people, creatures, and things in such a
way that encourages respect for them. I used the example of a hunter perceiving
an elephant as a kind of father figure. I don’t see the elephant as a father
figure but as a magnificent creature that deserves respect, appreciation, and
preservation. If those values disappear from culture, then they disappear from
the creature as well, so that the elephant becomes nothing more than a source
of meat, ivory, or sport, in other words, killed just for fun.”
“That means morality works only if
that which is to be respected is valued.”
“That seems to be the case. If
elephants aren’t valued then there is no foundation for morality to protect
them.”
‘”But elephants are valued.”
“Not in the way the Pygmy valued
them or in the way Native Americans valued the bison. To them the creatures had
inherent value and the relationship between the human and the animal was one of
friendship, even love. That might seem farfetched until you consider the
relationship people have with creatures such as cats, dogs, birds and horses.”
“So value must be present if
morality is to work?”
“Inherent value of some kind.
However, neither inherent value nor morality have been very successful in
protecting people, much less elephants. The reason being is that people must be
capable of appreciative awareness, which, I believe, is also the basis of
wisdom. I also believe that appreciative awareness comes naturally in women,
even to some men. But most men must acquire it though culture or education. Do
you agree?”
“I would hope the number of
sensitive men is greater than you suggest. I know there are insensitive, stupid
men, but most of the men I know are not like that.”
“That could be because though
rough around the edges, America is essentially a civilized society, more today
than in the past, that encourages decency and respect in men. Not all societies
are so lucky. And even in America laws are needed, less to manage the behavior
of women than that of men.”
“Because of the beast that lurks
in men.”
“Yes, which emerges in various
forms.”
“So laws have to be enacted.”
“And they are effective only
because disobeying them results in punishment. Law is a crude method of
encouraging decent, respectful, civil behavior, and many men are incorrigible.
Laws have been passed to protect elephants though one wouldn’t think they would
be unnecessary considering the majesty of the beast, but they are.”
“And they are still hunted.”
“If an ivory poacher thinks he can
get away with killing an elephant, he kills it. Worse, elephants are often
killed just for fun rather than for profit.”
“By men. I just can’t see women
killing elephants or any other creature unless they had good reason, such as
putting food on the table or being threatened. My grandmother raised chickens
for eggs. She loved her chickens. She would talk to them. But she would kill
one to feed her family. But she would never kill one just for the fun of it.
Such an act would have been unthinkable incomprehensible to her. She would have
considered it senseless cruelty.”
“The masculine gender is the one
that has the propensity to harm and kill.”
“That’s sad. So different from the
way of thinking of the male artists we’ve been discussing.”
“The importance of their art is
that it inspires appreciative awareness, and by doing so makes the world about
us more meaningful.”
“Perhaps that is the reason I
became interested in art. I wanted to learn to experience the world as artists
do. I knew art had something important to tell me. And it wasn’t just about
appreciating beauty but understanding and appreciating life as it’s experienced.
No books needed, just the art. And what one learns is that life can be
appreciated and understood in endless ways. The pursuit of art is an adventure,
I guess in the way philosophy is.”
“Both are intellectual adventures,
but art is more emotionally satisfying.”
“I see now that the difference
between art and law is that law just prohibits certain behaviors. It doesn’t
convey value to that which it protects. But conveying value is exactly what art
does.”
“That’s right. A poacher will kill
an elephant even though doing so is against the law if he thinks he can get
away with it. The only value the elephant has for him is profit. To me, the
poacher and other killers of elephants are blind though they can see well
enough to kill.”
“Blind to the value embodied in
the elephant.”
“Yes. And that sort of blindness
had a holiday during the white man’s conquest of America, the killing of
Indians and the bison, the destruction of forests. ”
“Because there were no cultural
values or laws to prevent such behavior.”
“Worse, it was encouraged by just
about everyone including presidents.”
“Then it was an ugly process of
destruction.”
“Susan Cooper’s father, Fenimore
Cooper, was outraged by crudity of the conquest. He lived while it was
occurring and he was greatly saddened by what he witnessed.”
“So he escaped into stories about
Indians.”
“I suppose he did.”
“And elephants are almost extinct.
It’s all pretty disgusting. If humans allow that to happen, I don’t think they
deserve the planet.”
“Nature just might agree with you.
A cruel and insensitive attitude can have a negative karmic response.”
“Like global warming creating a
climatic shift resulting in an extinction event, though I hope not. That would
harm mostly good people. And some people must see the value possessed by
elephants or else laws wouldn’t be passed.”
“Many people value wildlife enough
to want to protect it. They don’t want elephants or whales to disappear from
the face of the earth. And African countries that have elephants don’t want to
lose an important tourist attraction. Destruction comes from the acts of few
men, not the majority. That seems always to be the case. A few dull-minded men
can start wars that kill thousand and even millions of people. Such men wanted
Indians and the bison destroyed into extinction.”
“Your view of the world is pretty
pessimistic. I thought I was the pessimist!”
“I never claimed to be an optimist
when it comes to human behavior.”
“So we’re alike. That’s okay.”
“Fellow travelers, young and old.”
I smiled. The old man was a complete mystery to me that I was just beginning to
explore.
“And you think the big change has
been in the culture. That people don’t value nature in the way the Pygmies and
Indians did because their culture doesn’t.”
“These changes are sometimes
called paradigm shifts. In the old
world there were always ceremonies that made offerings to deities representing
aspects of nature. Our own Thanksgiving was once such a day—set aside to give
thanks to God for a bountiful harvest, but even it has become pretty much a
secular holiday during which a big meal is eaten and a football game is
watched. As societies have grown larger humans have lost touch with nature.
Urbanized society has become a house of mirrors in which humans see everything
in terms of themselves. This has contributed to an attitude of indifference
toward nature. You can’t really value that which you don’t interact with. The relationship
between the Indians and nature was intimate. And it may even be the case that
very large societies are inherently out of balance with nature, in the way
millions of automobiles inevitably change the natural landscape as well as that
of cities.
“And that brings to mind how
technology has changed our relationship to nature. Today’s big cities that
enclose people are technological environments, almost totally artificial in
design, material, and objects. And just think that a simple piece of technology,
a tool, the plow, made urban civilization possible. In a sense, the plow gave
birth to the city, and without cities humans would not have progress much
further than hunting-gathering societies. The plow is an interesting symbol of
technology because of how it acts upon the earth.”
“It cuts the earth. There is a
famous quote from a Wintu woman that says,
‘White
people plow up the ground, pull down the trees, kill everything ... The White
people pay no attention... How can the spirit of the earth like the White man?
...Everywhere the White man has touched it, it is sore.’ Is that what you
mean?"
“Yes, exactly. Where did you learn
that?”
“You can’t live in New Mexico and
not learn something about the Indians, though the woman I just quoted was from
a tribe in California.”
“So you also remember passages
that are important to you.”
“I guess we’re alike in that way.”
“And it seems you also know
something about Indians.”
“Yeah, a little.”
