There was a time when single cell organisms… let’s start again and call them ‘individuals’…. There was a time when single cell ‘individuals’ were the highest form of life on Earth. In some mysterious and yet to be explained way, some weird Principle of Organization had influenced molecules and compounds to come together to form a Unified Being, with a Unified Consciousness, that would coordinate its constituent ingredients for a Unified Purpose – ostensibly to move with active intent through fluids in order to procure nutrient substances in order to promote growth and to supply energy that could sustain its processes. The Principle of Organization that created these single celled individuals we can refer to as the Life Force.
One can suppose that the first nutrients that these
‘Individuals’ sought out were simple molecules or compounds. But we know that eventually Life started
feeding on other Life. This cannibalism
was, at that time and under these most primitive circumstances, amoral or
morally neutral. Each Individual lived
with the imperative that its own survival was its utmost priority and whatever contributed
to making itself thrive was considered an unalloyed good. It was, after all, Eat or be Eaten.
But then we find that the Life Force tends to
promote Organization at Higher and Higher Levels. Life goes from being Simple Single Cells to
becoming Complex and Multicellular. The more
Complex Self probably felt as Unitary in its Selfness as the more primitive
Single Cell had felt. Within this new
Multicellular ‘Individual’ all the various member cells would have needed to
work in collaboration with the Other Cells without any sense of priority in
‘self’ – they were in fact no longer ‘selves’ but constituent parts of a larger
Self, with their prior ‘Self Awareness’ subsumed by the Whole.
Now what I find very interesting is, that in the
Greater Organization of the Multicellular Organisms, that the individual Cells
were able to suppress their old imperative for eating anything that would
consist of nutrients, which in this case would be cells adjacent to them in the
new Complex Life Structure. It seems that Higher Lifeforms depended on a
new over-riding internalized Moral Imperative to assure that the constituent
Cells of a Complex Lifeform could exist in an inviolable state of peace and
cooperation. Suddenly there was a Right and a Wrong… a Good
and an Evil. Eating another Cell within the
same Organism would make one a Cancer.
The first Demons were tumors.
But, we can suppose that the development from Single
Cell Creatures to Multicellular Creators must have seen a Transitional Stage in
which Single Cells began to cooperate in Groups, and that there must have been,
at least at first, a tension between Eating other Cells or working with them for
shared goals. It is this Transitional
Phase between the Simple Unitary Identity and the Complex Unitary Identity that
should get our attention here, because we ourselves may now be in this same
kind of Transitional State (between living as Individuals and living as a Unitary
Group with a Collective Consciousness).
We can imagine what the Spiritual Experience must
have been like for the Single Cell Individuals.
Since Survival is perhaps the strongest imperative of Life, their primitive
Realization would probably have been along the lines of “All is One. I am One
with God. The entire Universe is Food. Go forth and Eat”. But what happens when numerous Single Cell
Selves unite for Collective Security?
Well, then this primitive Spiritual Realization, based on the assumption
that the Single Cell was the Highest Level of Spiritual Organization where being
an All Consuming Predator was in that context ‘Life Affirming’, well, within
the new Group Context, all of what had been implied by the old self-centric ‘Realization’
would become effectively very destructive.
For Transitional Life Organizations to thrive there had to have been some
kind of Dualistic Good vs Evil Realization, or at least the Inference that
Morality, in terms of abetting Group Cohesion, had become the over-riding necessity.
The Good would consist in Cooperation,
and anything that would subvert that Cooperation would be Evil, especially
Cannabalism! Even just going one’s own
way…minding one’s own business, as it were, would be effectively Evil as it
would cause one to ‘break formation’ with the Group which would invite attack
from other Groups that were able to maintain a more robust solidarity.
Anyway, all of that brings us to a concern regarding
what our Spiritual Awakening Experiences are telling us about our Present State
of Life Organization. Do our Spiritual
Awakenings show us that we are on the Verge of Rising to a Higher Level of Life
Organization in a kind of shared Collective Consciousness, or are our
Self-Realizations affirming our ancient and time-worn Individuality. We can look at the effects of these
Realizations on those who have had them.
In some cases there is a strong moral
impulse for strengthening the Social Group.
In other cases there is a tendency for retreat into isolation and
solitude. And we would all have to be
blind if we had not noticed Predators within the Spiritual Community (we can
see their Enlightenment in the glint of their razor sharp teeth). It is as though Humanity, at the Spiritual
Level, hasn’t made up its Mind which way it wants to go. But, if we need a hint, the Life Force must have
its reasons for ever reaching up for higher and higher levels of Life
Organization. Unless we are moving
forwards and upwards, then I think we are falling back and falling down.
2 comments:
Hi Leo - I followed you from a YouTube discussion about George Lakoff's ideas about the 'strict-father' model as a way to understand conservative priorities.
I was very interested to read this article and appreciated its endeavour. I'm a biologist by training (when I'm not being a linguist), so I have often considered these questions discussed here, from both spiritual perspective and economic perspectives.
Lots to comment on... where to start :)
Okay, here is something that is relevant to the discussion - one definition of an organism is a bunch of stuff inside a sac. The sac wall has holes and information, resources, and waste materials pass through it. It is this sac that gives 'integrity' to the organism.
Life or 'an organism' is simply not possible without a 'semi-permeable' membrane. I think it was Harold Morowizt, the biologist, who first made a thing about that (in his autobiographical work Cosmic Joy, Local Pain). A membrane is a sieve, a filter, a defence against the environment, a means of integrity etc... it really is many things, all of which bring significant insight into the nature of life.
One other thing to add at this point - the 'First Imperative' is not so much 'survival' or even living - these things are almost byproducts of the action of the living universe. It's either alive or its dead, and so all of this bumping of molecules and changing of forms is either irrelevant to that, or its stuck in the problem of explaining the duality of 'alive and dead'. Yes, biologists have their own definition of 'alive', but it's rather arbitrary, I have to say.
In the wider perspective - the universe is simply 'swapping costumes' when one organism 'lives' and another 'dies'. The form has changed, but the essential elements haven't. The cornucopia of forms create what we know as 'in-form-ation'. Ironic to think that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but information on the other hand is regularly both created and destroyed, or should that be 'transformed'? To get behind that curtain, you have to take a philosophical walk down the path of 'potentiality' vs 'actuality'.
Eat or be eaten. Another way to look at this is that 'stealing' is a pretty useful strategy for getting the resources needed to survive, or simply, to keep things going, if we understand that 'survival' is really just 'what happens' when these systems interact - something survives, okay, we'll call that 'the survivor'.
What makes the idea of 'stealing' wrong is the idea of 'ownership', and not simply even ownership of the resources, but ownership of a self. These start to be the minimum requirements of any conception of morality. If there is no ownership and no self, then morality is not what we thought it was.
Our sense of 'self' is a very modern concept. In the biological sense, it is the sum of all that you own. But ownership makes no sense with out a self, so it's kind of chicken and egg - which came first, ownership or self? In fact, is 'ownership' itself a definition of the self?
The semi-permeable membrane is built and rebuilt many times. The 'sac' is not a wall strictly speaking - it has holes. It's more like a conversation - things pass both ways. It's this possibility for a conversation that creates the possibility for a self, and with it, the notion of ownership and morality. An organism is better understood as an organism living inside an bigger organism, or to put it another way, the universe is only ever a single organism, which kind of changes things.
If our self-concept is flawed, would our vision of the world also be flawed too? Can a morality that is constructed from the top down really be described as a morality that derives from the bottom up?
Hi Mark,
Thank you very much for your comment. I feel honored that somebody with some actual background in Biology should reflect upon what I had to say. I am pleased that you seem to be extending me so much tolerance and forbearance, as I seem to have missed many of the nitty gritty details that to you must see as ‘textbook’ and elementary. But I was using the Idea of the development of the simplest Life Forms as a kind of an Analogy for the development of Humanity from Individuality towards a Unitary Collective Consciousness (possibly through intermediate stages of Unitary Group Consciousnesses).
But, since we have your attention… you mentioned the importance of “permeable membranes”. Of course, with higher level lifeforms we would need to generalize that concept. For instance, with an Individual Human Being, I suppose we could see the “permeable membrane” in terms of the organs for ingestion, breathing, elimination, and perhaps even the sensory organs. But in regards to Collective Entities, such as a Hive of Bees, well, there the permeable membrane would be rather fluid, wouldn’t it? Each characteristic required of the Permeable Membrane would have to be performed by specialized members of the Hive.
Oh, and Mark, you mentioned Life and Death as processes in the Universe, where you described the Universe as the Unitary Organization (if I am not misrepresenting the gist of what you had to say). Well, the problem with that orientation, is that it doesn’t appear that the Life Force sees it in that way. If all things within the Universe were in a state of balance and equilibrium, then the Life Force would have had no motive for Organization – everything would have been fine being dead, static, unmoving. But it seems plain that Life is preferred over Death. Higher Forms of Life are preferred over simpler forms, or we would see no development in that regards. But, yes, of course we see a tension, and it is a sad truth that often individual cells within an organism turn cancerous and begin to devour cells with which it should be cooperating. This Tension demonstrates that the Organizing Life Force is by no means absolutely powerful. Perhaps when we speak of Evolution of Life, we are referring in large part to the building Strength and internal Cohesion of the various Parts within each Unitary Whole. And then, in those terms, when we look at Human Society, in its present state, well, we must wonder whether or not sometimes Evolution goes backwards.
Oh, and thank you for bringing my attention back to this essay… it turned out that a little bit of editing was in order.
Post a Comment