My Favorite things about Angelfire.
My Favorite Web Sites
Human Life As We Have Come To Know It A non-religious theory as to the origins and purpose of human existence My intention is not to offend anyone with my beliefs. Neither do I wish to debate nor defend them, nor convert anyone to my perspective on human life. I simply wish to find others who see the human condition as I do We as a species are now sufficiently advanced to go beyond our instinctual basis as animals to a more intellectual capability. This shift in consciousness allows us to predict the consequences of our actions, modify our behavior and change the way we conduct our lives. As a result, we are no longer required to follow patterns established as we were progressing through the various stages of existence. We can now make conscious decisions to resist social, cultural and physical influences and eliminate human suffering and death. For purposes of conceptualization, I think of human beings as being composed of two sides, similar to the ancient Buddhist precepts of yin and yang. That is, all human beings are composed of both physical and emotional elements. There are many other ways to describe these components: male and female (as in traits, not gender); facts and feelings; west and east; earth and heaven; outer-directed and inner-directed; tangible and intangible; intellectual and instinctual, linear and circular, singular and holistic. This bipolar model also relates to the north and south poles of the planet. In all these examples, each “side” relies on the other, and is dependent on the other. They can be referred to as “opposites”, and can develop a tension that at its extreme devolves into a conflictual relationship. This could explain many of the clashes we see throughout human history. Scientists refer to these elements as matter and energy. This discovery happens to be a key to the functioning of an atomic bomb. Just as this insight has the potential to end all life, it also has the potential to explain all life. The book “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra shows how western science and eastern mysticism can be used to explain these life forces. Those who are more in touch with the tangible world I refer to as “physicalists”, and those who are more in touch with the non-tangible, I call “energyists.” Of the latter, I could call them emotionalists or spiritualists, but those terms have pejorative connotations that others would find misleading. For purposes of understanding human existence, I conclude that this model works well, and I hold that each of these worlds, the tangible and the non-tangible, are of equal importance, and that one is not superior to the other. The equality of our polarities is a difficult premise to maintain because, without the physical, the nonphysical would not be manifest. The world of energy as in emotion, spirit, light, feeling, etc., is dependent on the physical to be realized using the physical senses. This leads to the conclusion that the material has more value than the emotional. We see this preference to an extreme in Western societies that value physical comfort and bodily survival as important, and in Eastern societies that value religious doctrine and spiritual survival as paramount. Energyists may argue that the physical world is not necessary to establish the existence of the spiritual. I contend that a human being must exist in the physical realm in order for any theory to be constructed. In order to put forth an idea, a person must exist as a physical entity, and to enter the spiritual world, according to all religions that I know of, a person must first come to be on the material plane. This seems to be the basis of all religious thought: That spiritual life only comes to us when we exist in the physical dimension. Most religionists, however, would probably disagree with that idea. That, of course, is to be expected since they are more in touch with the spiritual side of life. By their very nature, they are inclined to relate to life in the intangible realm, even if it defies rational logic that is another characteristic of the physicalists. This leads me to my first observation that at least half the human race will find difficult to accept: That god did not create humans, but that humans created god. Those who disagree with this will react in ways that are appropriate and expected from an energyist point of view. Others who are more inclined toward the physical can see why my conclusion is necessary. Through no fault of our own, we humans find ourselves thrust into physical existence at birth. As far as I am able to determine, all major belief systems contend that we did not exist before conception and that the purpose of our physical experience is to reach a spiritual reward. According to religionists, if there is nothing after physical death, then there would be no purpose to physical existence. Consequently, energyists have had to create what they call an afterlife to justify human existence. I contend, as would any physicalist, that we come into tangible existence when two existing humans engage in a sexual act. The motivation for this activity (in physical terms) is generally accepted to be one or a combination of the following: the sex drive; the need to nurture; the need to lessen pain; the need to find pleasure; the need to ensure comfort in old age, among others. All of these needs are those of the existing humans. None apply to the human that is produced because of them. The unconceived human’s needs are rarely if ever taken into account. Consequently, the rights of the unconceived are not acknowledged and respected. Most good parents are adamant that one of their most important goals as parents is to minimize the pain and suffering of their offspring. Parents everywhere would do anything to avoid witnessing their child’s demise. I can give them a 100% guarantee that their children will never suffer and never die. Where in human life is anything guaranteed, especially something so important? The only action necessary by the existing humans to achieve this worthy goal is that they not conceive. If they have no offspring, then their offspring will not suffer pain and they will not experience death. This may seem patently obvious to individuals in touch with the physical world, but it does not seem to be acceptable to most humans. One possible explanation for this denial is that existing humans are in so much pain or are so blinded by our own needs that we, by and large, are unable to agree to this fundamental fact of (physical) life. Since humans evolved from animals, we have had to follow our instincts (another characteristic of the energy side of human life) through most of our existence as a species. Relatively recently in human evolution we have become able to predict the outcome of our actions and to modify our behavior in the physical world, especially those who are more inclined to the physical. We, as a species, are now in a position to reduce and even eliminate the need to bear children. Nevertheless, we are still subjected to powerful forces, some innate and others social, that attempt to control our behavior. For example, we are born with an overwhelming need to return to the womb. What else would explain a child’s fixation on the place from which it originated. This fixation leads us to conclude that our parents must have had our best intentions in mind when they created us in their image and likeness. Our parents played god when they decided when, where, and with whom to create us. They based their actions not on knowledge, because humans do not have the facility for predicting the future in such things. Rather, they based their decision (or more likely their unthinking behavior) on their needs. Needs that have to be met even at the unavoidable eventuality that their offspring would suffer and die because of them. How is this action commonly justified? Well, the reasoning goes (for those who rely on reason), our parents did it to us, so it must be acceptable. And everyone is doing it, so it can’t be wrong. The most pervasive and overarching motivation, however, is that life is so intolerable, that anything or anyone who gives us a modicum of pleasure is worth the agony that they will have to suffer as a result of their physical existence. Besides, they can have kids to serve the same purpose. Therefore, humans create life in an unthinking, irrational and futile attempt to ease their own pain. What is more distracting than a cute child that gives our life meaning? On the other hand, one could say that if only god can take life, then only god can make life. Most religions do conclude that humans are precluded from taking a life. Since religions are based on intangibles, such as faith and hope, they will not rely on the same logic when it comes to making life. By creating a human being, most people seem to be saying that life is so painful, so fundamentally flawed, that they have to do something, anything to make it at least temporarily less intolerable. This is a troubling revelation. And one that most humans avoid facing at all costs: That our parents were thinking of themselves when they created us. And our needs were ignored prior to our conception. Regarding this conclusion, most people resort to the common platitude: “You should be thankful that your cup is half full, and stop complaining that it is half empty.” I find this advice to be highly suspect. I want to know why I was handed a cup half full. Who got the other half? Why do most humans get a cup considerably less full? Why are we told to accept it? Who is giving this advice? And why? Could it be from those whose cup is overflowing? Or who hope that someday it will be? I think that most humans in our present state of evolution are capable of confronting these questions, but are terrified at finding the answers. Some of us are now sufficiently secure and self-controlled to admit that we owe it to the unconceived to stop them from being made to endure physical pain and physical death. Is there any tenet by any religion that life before conception is untenable? Does any ideology claim that the unconceived are in dire straits, or that they crave to be made physical? Certainly, there are those organized religions that demand births to increase their power and influence. There are others that require cheap labor and docile obedience to enhance their need for superiority. But most couples who are aware of the consequences of their actions and have the means to alter them will conclude that they are under no obligation to conceive. And, to the contrary, they are saving a life by causing it not to be formed. One should not conclude that this approach eliminates the need for sex. We who exist need every opportunity to relieve our pain and seek some solace. But we should endure our own suffering without having to impose it on our offspring. If a couple feels that they must experience child birth (to fulfill either their physical or emotional needs), then they should attempt to limit themselves to one child. This might be acceptable if they are willing to adopt a child of the other gender that will produce a balanced family, as well as provide a home for the adoptee. This will also have the added benefit of slowly, over a long period of time, reducing the human population to a more humane level. If this life view is practiced, then life will feel pointless, at least for a few generations. But this has always been the case. Being one of over 6 billion, on a planet among billions, one can feel insignificant. As we have seen, the common practice is to create children to try to mitigate our lack of significance by exercising superiority over our children, while at the same time being distracted by their innocence and naiveté. This is, of course, the reason humans created religion and the idea of a god. As I stated at the outset, I do not want to insult, upset or challenge anyone’s beliefs. However, if a person is convinced of the absolute correctness of their own belief system, then he or she will not feel threatened by my positions. If they have doubts, then they will react negatively. I have no desire to engage in arguments, diatribes, or debates over my positions. I will certainly attempt to offer clarifications in writing. These are not issues that lend themselves to spontaneous responses. Energyists want to express themselves without reflection because that is their nature. As I said earlier, I am simply looking for others who believe as I do. I am not looking to convert anyone to my world view. I understand that what may appear to be rational ideas must be automatically rejected by energyists because life already contains too many unknowns, and they crave a feeling of security. If I decide to have one less child, or no children, what do the religions advise me? Do they say I am interfering with god’s will? Is there a spirit somewhere that has to wait until it is claimed by its body? Religions do not seem to address these questions. As far as I can tell, religions tell me that it is up to me regarding the number of humans I create. The Catholic religion currently prohibits its leaders from creating life, so there must be some advantage to restricting procreation. All religions are theories constructed by humans to help themselves make sense of the physical world and their place in it. Why does physical existence not make sense? Most religions were established by humans who claimed some guidance from some supernatural entity. These are emotionalists who need to feel that someone is watching over them and is aware of a reason for their existence. These are people who must concede control over their lives to a being of superior intelligence, because they know they are not capable of controlling their physical circumstances. Religions, and other energy-based ideologies, rely on theories based on a need to escape the physical demands of life and ignore the implications of physical evolution. Why do we continue to create human life when our intelligence should militate against it? The physical need to return to the place from which we came indicates an overwhelming drive to return to the womb. Social and practical limitations dictate against constant coital embrace, so we often engage in other activities that substitute for physical reattachment. Verbal exchange can satisfy this need in some. Smoking, drinking and eating all result from an oral compulsion, often referred to as an addition. No one seems to ask why this need exists beyond infancy. It reveals a desperate need to return to a prior state. A disconnected state is a state of anxiety. This anxiety is the result of a separate physical existence. If an infant could, it would revert to a preconceived state. Why then do we existing beings deny that infant its basic needs? Why do we ignore the adverse reaction to being born? Are we not now sufficiently advanced in our evolution to acknowledge the possibility that human life has no meaning beyond death? And that we are now able to stop this madness? That we can now control ourselves and save the lives of our children by limiting their conception? This approach is actually quite common among physically secure people. Those existing humans who experience a high standard of (physical) living have fewer children. If human life at its best is not to be shared with larger numbers of children, then it may not be as desirable as once thought. Those whose physical existence is more tenuous have larger families. The common explanation is not that life is so desirable that is must be shared. On the contrary, it is thought that life is so unpredictable and insufferable that the existing humans need help to support themselves and assure themselves that some of their children will survive them in old age. If life was so good, those of us who live a good physical existence would want to share it with our progeny. But the contrary is evident. Those in misery need more children to help them tolerate physical existence. Those living well have a lesser need for children to distract them from their situation. So, if life were good for most people, then birth rates would fall. Those in positions of power within organized religions find this threatening, and so advise against fewer children. Those of us who live well find ourselves needing and wanting fewer children because we feel less fear about the future. Fear and suffering are no longer valid reasons for creating life. Knowing that we have come to a point where we can save lives by causing them not to be conceived should be our guiding principle for living a life of meaning. We should stop the madness and let humanity slowly recede into its natural state, unencumbered by instinct and thoughtless behavior. We should use our intellectual capacity and our ability to predict the consequences of our actions to improve conditions for existing humans without creating more humans in the process. I would be interested to hear from anyone who believes as I do. I would also like to know if anyone is aware of an established belief system that follows the views I have outlined above. I would venture to say that my approach relies on a balance between the two poles of life as I have described them. Those who practice on the extremes will not be able to relate to this concept. Extreme materialism is just as destructive as extreme emotionalism. Therefore, those who react strongly to my views will be at the extremes and not able to understand this life view. Those who agree with my interpretation are welcomed to add their comments and help to articulate and expand on my attempt at an explanation. I will also appreciate any assistance from you in posting this essay in appropriate forums and groups who may share my ideas. I am well aware that most people will react badly to my view. It may depress, upset or otherwise repel them. I regret this reaction, and wish them no harm. I would strongly advise them to return to the world of illusion and myth to help relieve any discontent a physical view of life my cause them. On the other hand, it would be satisfying to find others who have come to the same conclusions and who can offer solace and support to each other. The view I offer is so obvious to me that I can only conclude it must find some acceptance among a few others. We Americans vociferously defend our freedoms, but I am not sure we practice them to their full extent. Freedom to me does not mean freedom to conform, but freedom to be different. It is not only freedom to agree, but freedom to disagree with widely-held beliefs. I have the sinking feeling that freedom to most Americans is the freedom to dream of wealth, luxury and power. This, I believe, is a physical dream to the extreme. The freedom to speak of beliefs that are not acceptable to the majority is a basic right. To be in the majority can be a dangerous thing, not only to a minority, but to most people. If the American ideal means anything it is the proposition that radically new ways of thinking must not be suppressed, either by government or by conventional thinking. So I offer a view of life that doesn’t seem to me to be all that crazy or extreme. But I have not heard it expressed among casual conversation. And, judging from general social discourse, there doesn’t seem to be any interest in discussing the meaning and purpose of life, beyond reciting inherited beliefs and superficial platitudes. Please respond to humanexistence@verizon.net if you agree with the above, or wish to offer constructive comments. Thank you. Thank you for visiting my page at Angelfire. Please come back and visit again!
