©2001 Jon Youngblood Unity Through Understanding A Guidebook for the Recently Alive

Part Three:  Unity Through Understanding

Chapter Eleven: Heaven, Hell, and Everything

11.2     Individuality and Freedom

  Freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to loose” – Janis Joplin

“There has been a deep change in the temper of science in the last twenty years: the focus of attention has shifted from the physical to the life sciences. As a result, science is drawn more and more to the study of individuality. But the interested spectator is hardly aware yet how far-reaching the effect is in changing the image of man that science moulds. As a mathematician trained in physics, I too would have been unaware, had not a series of lucky chances taken me into the life sciences in middle age. I owe a debt for the good fortune that carried me into two seminal fields of science in one lifetime; and though I do not know to whom the debt is due, I conceived The Ascent of Man in gratitude to repay it.” ^#1

We enjoy today a kind of personal and social freedom that has never before been seen on the face of our planet. No longer are we the dutiful  “subjects” of a nation or state ruled over by a single human being.  Whether this being is a beneficent arbiter or a cruel tyrant, the single leader notion of rule has become obsolete.  No longer are we, as individuals within a bonded group,  part of a single religious Faith either.  Religious Freedoms that began even before the social revolutions and eastern infusions of the 1960’s and ‘70’s, back in the early 16th Century (1500's) Martin Luther set into motion the decline of religious fidelity as a promotion of personal freedom.  The freedom to believe as we choose and to worship as we see fit.

This has, it must be argued, affected the credibility of the religious equivalent of God as ruler, sovereign, monarch, or as the King of Kings.  How can we reconcile our daily lives of individuality and personal freedoms with an obsolete concept of ruler - divine though He may be?  Being ruled under any circumstances is just not something that the average educated free world citizen is willing to accept any longer.  We just don’t do that anymore.  Too many of our ancestors fought and died on our behalf so that we could enjoy this newfound freedom to end up being subjugated all over again by our Faith.

So it is that a new image of God is emerging.  As we saw in Part One, the face of God (and even His name) has changed many times over the course of history in order to better reflect the circumstances under which His people lived.  And now, so too, Deity is coming to be Understood not only as a kinder more loving God, but one with which we can be seen as partners in existence with God rather than subjects under God.

This notion has also been suggested in a number of ways within the New Age Spiritualism.  Even to the point of suggesting that we are in effect “co-creators” with God.

Cry Babies

Perhaps the republican views that we have become “a bunch of cry babies” with little or no fortitude is not entirely without merit – but as a democrat, I will concur with this view only if the republicans are willing to share the same boat with everyone else. 

This lack of fortitude is exemplified in our “pair bonding” or our “committed” (using the word loosely of course) relationships.  An increasing percentage of relationships today seemed basically composed of a series of hurt or get hurt situations.  Only very rarely do two people love strongly enough reciprocally that the pairing lasts for any great length of time.  For those who are in that increasing percentage who will never experience the phenomena of life-time bonding, long time pair bonders often disclose that a point is reached, in order for the long term survival of the relationship, where it is recognized by both parties that there are more personal rewards in pairing than for mutual love (which may represent on the luckiest 5% of pair bonds).  

And yet lives are wasted and relationships missed because we believe that each and every one of us will be the lucky ones.  Let’s “get a grip”, as my dear friend Paul Keefe used to tell me.  So at this point we have (and being aware of the dangers of black and white thinking) a real choice to make.  Either we become The Rogue, or we become Humble and surrender individuality and personal freedoms for a greater good – the good in this example being the benefits realized by long term pair bonding. 

In the end it is our recognition that long term pair bonding, like everything else that requires fortitude, is in our own best interest.  Our own selfishness - real selfishness, not just momentary lust - is what will ultimately lead us to the stability and genuine freedom that we all feel and have mainly achieved through out religious and culture idioms.  There are several books written on the underlying motivations of self-interest and self-preservation.  In this way we are not as far removed from the jungle as me may like to think.

Foul Ball

There are many ways in which we claim personal freedom "fouls" against long term bonding as well as anything else that may impinge upon our shiny new personal rights.  Unlike any other time in history, we increasingly feel we are being stifled, possessed, owned, or being denied any of a number of freedoms - sexual, relational or otherwise - by being constrained to one partner longer than the immediate entertainment value of the relationship lasts, or if well, if we do not get what we now believe we are entitled too.  

When we get bored or greedy or indifferent, we now indulge in the ever increasing certainty that it is our personal right to enjoy life as long as we do not physically assault another being - and even that is not a detriment to the powerful or wealthy who can assault from a distance and in relative safety.  And why should we not revel in our time?  Why not live life to the fullest?  

Many therapists as well as men of the cloth would be quick to reply that the answer is:  spiritual loneliness and emotional isolation.  In relationships we can play it safe and avoid the issue of bonding altogether and equate sex with love and embrace a never-ending series of sexual encounters without ever risking feeling a deep and abiding commitment (Love). In an atmosphere of an almost carnival like existence, it is not surprising that an increasing number of us can no longer appropriate a segment of our lives to emotionally and spiritually mature and thereby accept the obvious self interest involved in surrendering our ego and immediate gratification for a greater good?  For such simple folk, our ancestors knew one thing with startling clarity - hedonism was the claw that would rip to shreds the very fabric of our social nature - a nature that has lead our species to the very pinnacle of cultural, economic, and technological success.  

Many of us cannot even conceive of picking one person and devoting the rest of our lives to that relationships success rather than the success of our own personal amusement.  However the problem is not just one of trading individuality and personal freedoms for imposed or self-sacrifice and servility.  The complexity of this problem of social de-cohesion is suggested to be the same problem inherent in pre-liberated times.  The same reason we as otherwise civilized cultivated societies have been motivated to wage wars, rape civilizations, and completely ignore the pain of vast numbers of other sentient beings as ourselves:  we have fallen ill to a deadly kind of virus.  A contagion as yet unseen through any microscope at sciences disposal or at religions command to heal.  These “contagions” are of course the MEMEs that we examined in Part Two (?) (Insert Link to MEME), and they have spread throughout our culture like a disease since before history began.  Bearing in mind of course that a disease is only bad if you the human on which a disease is feeding.  If you are a virus then that disease is a wonderful thing - life itself!  

I’m not, in other words, criticizing the beliefs and subsequent behaviors of current generations.  I am simply pointing out the cost/benefit ratio of individuality over a more group-oriented lifestyle.  Each of us could find a good partner that we may not be madly in love with and live a long and happy life with them.  We may even come to love them, as was quite often the case as a clearer look at history reveals.  Each of us could learn to settle for less - IF we could regain the direct association with the damaging consequences to our survival as a group (and thus realize our own direct interests in the "less is better" philosophy.  Much of the mission of groups like Greenpeace is setting about to do just this.  Many are now suggesting that the lack of fortitude in our lives - our inability to just say no to our own greedy little desires - is not only making us less noble creatures, but less durable as well.  

We have, again according to the Rush Limbauh crowd, become not only "crybabies", but soft-bellied as well.  The vast majority of us are so far removed from the slaughterhouse, for example, that we would not have much of a stomach for eating hamburgers if we had to go out and butcher our own cattle.  At least short of starvation; and that is not much likely short of a total collapse of the vast network of industry that keeps the machines of our modern way of life running at full speed.  Image more than a few weeks without electricity or gasoline.  Fresh food supplies would dwindle quickly - particularly in the heat of summer. ; We are only about three weeks away from returning to the savagery of the jungle.  I pray I never live to see that day.  Whether by terrorist act or act of god or Armageddon itself.

So we have gained great personal freedom with which to exercise our individuality (or conventional social associations).  But just as not choosing is making a choice, so too "being" free is not an inherent state.  It again requires the thoughtful individual to choose.  This is one of those horrid black and white choices that cannot be avoided with intellectual magic.  Staying in the middle (or in gray zone) puts you right back into the cycle.  To continue with our example of personal relationships, sitting on the fence and not deciding is a decision to not decide.  By staying in this gray zone one perpetuates the relationship cycles of hurt and hurter because you can never promise The Rogues that you won’t fall in love with them because you are still open to the idea of antiquated yet conventional notions of long term pair bonding (as many of us – particularly the women – are), and you can never promise the Nesters that you can be committed because you are working from ego and self individuation (as many of us – particularly the men – are).

Serving Two Masters

Perhaps this inherent duality in certain aspects of nature is something similar to the meaning in the Bible about man being unable to serve two masters.  Some things really are black and white.  Any attempts to colorize them or use shades of gray only serves, in these cases, to pollute the true meaning of the thing.  Take fidelity for example.  How on earth can you be a little faithful without destroying the meaning of the word?  You see?  Or integrity.  Or any of the many other virtues that we consider the dividing line between what makes us human or “beast”.  It's like being a little pregnant.  (Unfortunately I believe it is a symptom of the diminishing appreciation for human fortitude that many people reading this will not "get" the in-congruency of being a little faithful and, even worse, a few who won't get the latter as well.  In the interest of time I will assume everyone still with me will accept the point as taken.)

It would seem, then, that if we have a soul, we had better get our virtues in order and back on the straight and narrow, or we should embrace our nature as a soulless animal.  I regret that this thought may sound a bit derrogatory for the devout, or even the “I think there is an afterlife, therefore there is” crowd.  I am just trying to point out a pretty cut and dry situation that has been mugwumping on the fence for too long.  I am an ardent proponent of thinking in color as I hope would be clear from earlier chapters.  Recognizing the endless variations of themes and viewpoints on many different fronts is an essential trait in comparative theology.  But some concepts, by their very nature, imply a black or white, yes or no, and require adherence to a choice made in regard to an utterly polar distinction. 

So what are these MEMEs and how have they so dramatically affected the way in which we conduct our affairs?  Why can’t we stick with it – whatever “it” may be?  We have devised a million ways of not behaving with any genuine commitment; so many ways to slip out of living unflinchingly with the decisions we make under the protection of Individuality and personal freedom.  It is easy for an individual to change their mind - it is harder to get a group to change their mind, as everyone well knows.  We have learned to put ourselves first.  To do what’s best for ourselves.  We have "caught" these feelings and ideas from an ever-growing source of contagion.  The media, cultural "truisms", the educational system, modern business tactics, and so on.  Even religion is partially involved with the changing mental landscape of the 21st century.  

So am I suggesting that individuation is bad?  That personal freedom is wrong?  My supposition is that it is not.  But I dare to question.  The issue, or problem if you see it as such, is not just about love or our relationships.  In relationships it doesn’t matter whether we feel butterflies in our stomach, or feel possessive, or feel an intense desire to nurture or total indifference (although that's not very nice now is it?).  The issue is not just about indifference or greed or lack of stick-to-it-tiveness.  This issue goes much deeper.  It’s about who we are as a species.  Are we merely animals in a mechanistic, indifferent existence?  Or are we the spirits indwelling human bodies in a Universe created by Deity? 

All You Need is Love

Could love be recognized as a chemically driven mechanism to insure propagation of our genes?  To ensure our children reach the age of fertility safely?  A mechanism that with our vast numbers, and with our vastly improved means of connecting socially, that love no longer serves a purpose?  Like a tail we no longer use and just keeps getting in the way and is damned annoying to say the least?  Especially sitting down!  Many within the science community might say that is a strong implication of what has been learned from neurology and genetics.  

Love from the point of view of religion (and religion, having finally grown weary of waging war in the name of God has now seemed to have embraced love as it's own invention) would (or must) insist that we are spirit and love it's divine light.  They must argue that in order to break the cycle of hurt or be hurt (or be likened unto an animal that is indifferent to the hurt in others - empathy, as a spiritual phenomena, is a strictly human attribute), one needs to “settle” (as in settle down) for someone, something, some level of achievement, whatever, and be content.  That salvation from this wasteland of selfishness can only come about when we re-learn to cherish our sacrifice of personal freedoms for the greater good of all.  

To many of us our personal freedoms have become more precious than life itself!  If we are organic machines it really doesn't matter much who we screw on the way to the grave now does it?  If we are spirit, it matters absolutely.  It really is as simple as that.  

So, as a personal challenge, to determine whether you are animal or spirit, try this:  if you find someone that loves you, and they provide good companionship and have something to bring into the pairing, take it.  If you love someone and they don’t love you but are willing to “settle” with you because of the good things that you can bring to the relationship, take it.  How long you can stick with it, or stick with it at all, may tell you more than you want to know about yourself.

The example of relationships rather than say fortitude or perseverance in dieting, shopping, job stamina, changing personal habits, etc., is not without reason.  As you recall from Part One, the institution of marriage is one of Gods greatest duties as ruler of the heavens and earth - next to birth and death.  If we never come "before the Lord" in a house of worship, we will be there for those three events.  The bonding of two spirits on earth is a sacred and holy event unique to man.  Or was.

The message of modern Christianity to “love they neighbor as thyself” is such a watered down platitude as to mean nothing in a world where the cohesive forces of solidarity, commitment, honor, and self-sacrifice are seen only in an occasional Tom Hanks movie.  These attributes are rarely evident in our REAL day-to-day life in the 21st Century.  Should they be?