|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 3The Pursuit of HappinessWritten by Darrell Anderson. Happiness is a Warm Puppy. Charles Schulz, creator of Peanuts As with all living entities, observation reveals that humans possess a strong desire for survival and self-preservation. Notwithstanding that everything between our ears is a matter of interpretation, survival is a matter of physical reality. If you do not eat you will wither and die, regardless of how you try to interpret such ideas. Thus, humans exist at two levels — physically and mentally. The physical senses — smell, touch, sight, hearing, taste, balance, position, direction, etc. — directly help humans sustain their energy flows. The mental processes of the mind — everything existing between the ears as interpretations and beliefs — help humans maintain their concept of existence. Physical existence is based primarily upon the tangible world of matter and energy, and mental existence is based upon subjective interpretations, presumptions, beliefs, and worldviews. Absent any life the physical world exists unconditionally. Physical processes continue — rain falls, water freezes and melts, etc. The universe changes according to physical laws. The mental image of existence is conditional on life itself. Things change based on the choices made by living entities. Humans share many characteristics with other animal species, but differ in some unique ways. Humans not only process information as do many other animals, but possess an ability to formulate various options about what to do with that information. Humans share with other animals a disposition for curiosity, but are unique in also trying to understand why things happen as they do.[1] Thus, humans can be motivated to act for reasons other than pure instinct.[2] Instinct is that inborn tendency to behave in a way characteristic of a species, the natural unacquired mode of responding to stimuli.[3] Instinct is both physical and mental — bodily need combined with the intellectual perception of satisfying that need.[4] Humans can act based upon instinct, but also can act through their ability to reason.[5] Unlike the rest of nature, humans have demonstrated an ability to synthesize information, to reason, and to formulate concepts and ideas. Although no human cannot not act, humans can act in a manner that is counter-instinctive. Some individuals argue that humans have sufficiently developed their sense of reason that many individuals would have difficulty surviving based upon pure instinct alone.[6] Humans do not view the physical world of reality only through pure instinct, but depend upon understanding reality through reason and interpretations. Humans today act based upon reason probably because of their high dependence upon tools and technology rather than raw nature. Regardless, the physiological desire to survive is a fundamental core of existence and is instinctive in nature.[7] The ability to reason only enhances the ability to survive. The ability to act in a counter-instinctive manner and to transcend mere passive existence means humans are self-aware.[8] Reasoning is a result of self-awareness. To be self-aware implies an understanding that every human is different. An ability to be self-aware creates a concept of self. The concept of self leads to a desire for self-expression.[9] There are many beliefs and interpretations about how humans might relate and interact with one another. Many of those beliefs create tensions with one another depending upon the people deriving the beliefs. However, observation reveals that despite the ability to reason, instinct still prevails in humans in several areas:
Those instincts are uniquely tied together and never disappear. Although identifying those instincts within specific activities is sometimes challenging, they nonetheless are generally recognized through two conventions or “boundaries” that have threaded their way throughout human history. One boundary is every individual’s instinctive desire to pursue happiness. Another boundary is every individual’s instinctive desire to prevent trespass. These two boundaries are in continual tension with one another and that tension likely never can be eliminated.[10] As with all language, both the words happiness and trespass are subjective in meaning. Only each individual can hope to recognize the specific attributes that might express those words, but the words can be defined in a useful general manner. Happiness: an interpreted state of personal existence derived from an individual’s perception of his or her survival and well-being. Trespass: any unsolicited human action against another individual that deprives the offended individual of personal interpreted happiness. Notice the inherent tension between the two boundaries. Trespass could be defined as any such act regardless of origin, but as this book is about the principles humans choose to live by, the definition remains restricted likewise. The word trespass is used in a broad sense and is not restricted to any specific kind of action. Additionally, observation reveals that what rendered happiness yesterday does not necessarily define happiness today. Because humans are uniquely self-aware, they are continually searching for meaning and purpose in their lives, seeking a sense of identity.[11] Therefore, every individual’s definition of happiness is continually changing and is never permanent. Happiness and trespass both are related to the fundamental desire to survive. At base physiological levels of existence, happiness is food, shelter, clothing, and warmth. Physical existence requires immediate energy conversion. At such a level, trespass is any unwanted human action interfering with pursuing those objectives. Because all ideas are interpreted, ideas necessarily are intellectual. Although the ideas of happiness and trespass are cognitive, happiness and trespass often are derived from the physical world. Most individuals prefer to avoid pain, both as part of their pursuit of happiness and their desire to prevent trespass. Some individuals might argue that at base physical levels of existence concepts such as happiness and trespass no longer exist because those ideas are mental in nature. Thus, the preference to avoid pain is merely a creature comfort and a result of the natural and physical desire to survive. However, humans differ from other animals in that their happiness also exists within the realm of the intellectual. The fact that humans are self-aware means they are continually striving to find answers to the eternal question of their existence.[12] The modern definition of the “pursuit of happiness” is largely a poetic reflection of the Enlightenment Age. The phrase gained particular popularity from the American Declaration of Independence. Today that expression often means the lawful acquisition of worldly things.[13] In previous hunter-gatherer, herder, and closed agrarian communities — where individuals tended to live at the level of mere subsistence — happiness was defined largely in terms of physical survival. In an environment of bare subsistence, through adopted customs and beliefs, individuals learned and were taught that individual survival depended greatly upon mutual survival. Personal choices and individual risk-adverse behaviors were uncommon and often discouraged and condemned, as were individual actions that threatened the continuity of mutual survival.[14] When individuals exist at subsistence levels, such actions and behaviors easily could mean disaster for the entire group.[15] Through the millennia, little has changed about this aspect of human nature. Although humans can act differently, generally they tend to focus first on satisfying physical needs before satisfying social and psychological needs. The world is different today. The Industrial Age opened doors to many changes in human interaction, primarily in allowing humans to produce and satisfy their physical needs in a far more efficient manner than their ancestors. That change in social structure provided additional opportunities to expand the definition and expression of happiness. The pursuit of happiness has taken on new meanings and importance. Today the pursuit of happiness also means seeking:[16]
Human perception about whether these pursuits are being satisfied is always situational and under flux. Because the definition of happiness is continually changing, the definition of trespass is continually changing. Outside the realm of physiological survival, happiness and trespass cannot be specifically defined, other than by each individual. And even then, the definitions remain changing and subjective. Therefore, attempting in a global manner to permanently determine what constitutes happiness and trespass becomes impossible. Nonetheless, if humans hope to live amongst one another in some peaceable manner, then some kind of reasonable balance must be sought between the two generally accepted boundaries. To act counter-instinctively means human action is predictable only generally. Understanding instinct is insufficient to understand how humans interact with one another, but so is reason. Because reason is an interpretative process, predicting how any individual might reason often is difficult. Humans cannot stop being self-aware.[17] Predicting specific actions of any individual is therefore also difficult. This general unpredictability might lead to conflict. Conflicts are disagreements about interpretations of happiness and trespass. All conflicts are rooted in a desire to survive — both individually and collectively. Conflict always is derived from the concept of trespass and occurs in several ways:
Because of the desires to pursue happiness and prevent trespass, and the ability to think abstractly beyond mere animal instinct, historically humans have demonstrated an ability to perceive or imagine threats to their survival and pursuit of happiness. Humans emotionally express those perceptions through doubt, anger, rage, exasperation, aggravation, contempt, etc. However, fear is a typical individual emotional reaction to trespass and conflict. Fear: an individual’s emotional reaction to a real or imagined threat expected to interfere with that individual’s pursuit of happiness. Fear is a form of anxiety, a condition of tension and stress, a customary reaction to external threats of pain or destruction that an individual is unprepared to cope with or face.[18] This anxiety can be a result of actual dangers, perceived dangers, or struggles of conscience.[19] Thus, humans have demonstrated an ability to destroy and eliminate, even when facts are minimal or nonexistent, and no actual threat can be demonstrated. All that is necessary is the perception and interpretation of threat. Fear is rooted in the instincts of sustaining energy flows and self-preservation. Most people would seem to want to abide by the two principles of pursuing happiness while preventing trespass. Those desires lead to a desire to avoid tension and conflict. Combining those principles creates a desire for security. Security: the emotional condition of an individual opportunity to pursue happiness without trespass. People want to be secure in their pursuit of happiness while preventing trespass. Preventing trespass avoids conflict and tension. Security is a pleasure principle and is a desire to eliminate tensions and anxiety arising from fear or conflict. However, humans cannot act or think outside their knowledge that the future is uncertain. This element of existence is always affecting human action. Because humans cannot completely eliminate fear and uncertainty about the future, the best they can hope for is to learn to tolerate that basic insecurity without panic and fear.[20] Yet, fear or anxiety motivates people to action.[21] The desire for security creates another tension in human existence: the desire to possess liberty of action but limit the liberty of action of others. Therefore, self-defense is rooted in the instinct of self-preservation and is the human act of trying to prevent or remedy trespass in order to sustain the pursuit of happiness. Self-defense might be as simple as running away or as violent as killing others. Self-defense is instinctive in all living entities. Anything that tends to disturb one’s sense of security leads to increased anxiety, tension, and fear.[22] When the option of physical self-defense is hindered, people develop psychological defense mechanisms — unconscious responses to excessive anxiety. Defense mechanisms often serve to deny, falsify, or distort reality.[23] History indicates that despite the strong urge for survival and the pursuit of happiness — and the willingness to shed blood if necessary to protect those pursuits — humans generally have reasoned that perhaps there might be a more peaceful way to overcome uncertainty and fears and promote mutual survival. All animal species that live in societies observe the principle of mutually helping one another.[24] Despite the instinctive desire for individual survival, humans realize their deficiencies in being self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency: the ability to act and survive without the help of other humans. Self-sufficiency and efficiency are not the same. No human is or can be perfectly efficient. Humans therefore learn about cooperation and compromise. Since the days of the early hunter-gatherers, humans have realized that mutual survival enhances individual survival.[25] Mutual survival tends to enhance the ability to provide for physiological and psychological needs and provide a sense of security. History reveals when persuasion and cooperation are encouraged that communities of people blossom, grow, and mature peaceably. Conversely, history demonstrates when force and coercion are randomly used that human interaction stagnates and withers, and people resort to a condition of “might makes right.” Whenever the words force and coercion are used, keep in mind the physical laws of motion. That is, motion is impossible unless force is applied to overcome resistance. When you read these words ask yourself what is being resisted and why. Persuasion and cooperation means an individual possesses the option to freely participate or decline participation in any human activity. Force and coercion demands that an individual be deprived of that option — ultimately through the threat of violence. Persuasion and cooperation allows voluntary association, force and coercion unwanted or uninvited association. People want to avoid violence. Humans seem to recognize that violence tends to beget violence and reduces chances for survival. Thus, the alternate choice of persuasion and cooperation is usually preferred. Mutual survival therefore requires mutual restraint.[26] People voluntarily restrain and limit some of their actions in order to promote mutual survival. Voluntary restraint requires trust between individuals. As trust increases, perceived security increases. Yet, humans embrace mutual survival only as long as that arrangement supports individual survival. If the benefits of mutual survival disintegrate, humans revert to individual survival. That desire might be purely individual, or communally at the level of a clan, tribe, or family. Whenever trust decreases the desire for individual security increases. When trust decreases and the desire for individual security increases, individuals tend to develop a revengeful attitude that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander.” The focus changes from “us” to “me.” Individual defense takes precedence over mutual defense. Animosity grows. Humans then tend to disperse and disband relationships.[27] The well-being of any individual or community of people depends upon knowing and adhering to various social principles.[28] The tension between the ideas of pursuing happiness and preventing trespass implies that limitations and boundaries exist in human interactions. Limitations and boundaries imply an ability to exclude other individuals. The desire to exclude and limit, and the ideas of self-defense and survival, necessarily implies the potential to use force and coercion. The ability to exclude necessarily implies potential for conflict and violence. Peaceful mutual survival necessarily requires compromise. Compromise does not mean foregoing or forfeiting the instincts of sustaining energy flows and self-defense, but means carefully defining the principles guiding human action. What often is at dispute among humans is how and when force and coercion might be used. The boundaries of happiness and trespass have not always been fully honored, encouraged, or recognized, and often have been coercively defined by some individuals on behalf of others. These observations might explain much of the bloody conflict that history testifies. History shows that although persuasion and cooperation improves living standards, encourages an environment for the mutual survival and general happiness of all, and reduces fears of real or perceived trespass, the instinctive singular individual desire for survival and happiness never disappears. Although willing and often eager to pursue persuasion and cooperation, that individual desire always is at tension with voluntary mutual survival and happiness. Humans seek ways to promote mutual and long-term survival, but the individual desire for survival and happiness sometimes overrides that effort. Humans sustain their energy flows from two perspectives — physically and mentally. The physical level is biological and the mental level is a conceptual interpretation of pursuing happiness. Through that combined focus humans prefer to avoid conflict and violence. They are continually searching for balance between the natural desire for individual survival and happiness and the desire to encourage an environment of persuasion and cooperation that strengthens that individual desire and minimizes trespass. Thus, many beliefs and interpretations develop in the hopes of securing that mutually satisfying environment. Because the desire to survive is a natural condition for all living creatures, the pursuit of happiness, the desire to prevent trespass, and the perceived need for self-defense and security all arguably are naturally existing physical laws. Observing nature reveals that peace is not accomplished by a willingness to defend, but a willingness not to intrude.[29] Observing nature seems to affirm these ideas. Despite the obvious differences in size and strength, notice that only rarely will a bear interfere with a skunk. Conceivably, then, such an idea is not intellectual at all, but a law of nature. Thus, pursue your idea of happiness, but in doing so do not intrude or trespass against others. With respect to the skunk at least, the bear seems to practice that proverb without being able to articulate the idea. Perhaps there is a lesson there for humans. Finis. Next: Chapter 4 — Limited Knowledge Endnotes [1] Stevenson and Haberman, Ten Theories of Human Nature, p. 117. [2] Sperling, Psychology Made Simple, p. 53. [3] Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, second edition, 1983. [4] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, pp. 39–40. [5] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 23. [6] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, p. 171, citing Eric Fromm, The Sane Society, 1955, Rinehart, New York. [7] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 22. [8] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 23. [9] Love, Human Conduct and the Law, p. 53. [10] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, p. 1. [11] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 29. [12] Fromm, The Sane Society, pp. 28–29. [13] Barnard, Draining the Swamp, p. 83. [14] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign Individual, pp. 82–84. [15] Frost, Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers, p. 178. [16] Leiman, Views on Capitalism, p. 273, discussing the writings of Thorstein Veblen. [17] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 24. [18] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, pp. 47–48. [19] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, p. 48. [20] Fromm, The Sane Society, p. 196. [21] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, p. 48. [22] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, p. 177. [23] Hall and Lindzey, Theories of Personality, p. 51. [24] Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, in toto. [25] Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, p. 83. [26] Spencer, “The Great Political Superstition,” The Man Versus The State, p. 151. [27] Davidson and Rees-Mogg, The Great Reckoning, pp. 61–62. [28] Spencer, “The Proper Sphere of Government,” The Man Versus The State, p. 184. [29] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 249. |
||