“We live in a changing universe, and few
things are changing faster than our conception of it”-Timothy Ferris
“There is no
tomorrow. There is only a planet turning on its axis, and a creature given to
optimistic fancies”-Robert Brault
Evolution has
taken us from Kuru disease generators to cyber Guru Venerators.
Socially
certain societies, why most human societies, are groomed as a group with more
incentives and encouragement to follow than explore; exercise hypocrisy rather
than skeptical questioning and this is precisely the technique adopted by all
religious institutions either with or without organized set up.
However, change
in every aspect of life is an inevitable truth that cannot be avoided or wished
away.
The status quo
may get disturbed but it is a necessary adventure for emancipation of human
spirit.
As Winston
Churchill said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance
may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” I may add taboos and tradition may
tuck it in or turn away but truth is ‘inconvenience’.
G.K.
Chesterton’s definition is the best ‘An adventure is only an inconvenience
rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered’
When human
intellect resorts to defend or justify, more than define or explore or accept
facts for what they are worth, normally it becomes sharper with additional
vindications from many allied areas because the defense is further enforced
with adrenal reactions which are all normal.
Guy Murchie
declares, “Evolution itself is an open ended and indeterminate process”… “Given
the remarkable progress in our understanding of biochemistry, molecular
biology, and evolution as a whole … we have failed to develop concepts, ideas,
even a language that could capture the dance of this life”
I would like to
add it is mostly due to our intellectual reluctance and religious impediments.
But the whole
malady started when certain societies, already well connected, intellectually
more advanced ones and therefore got so well conditioned by their traditions
and religiously prescribed ways of life based on such sound base, obviously
ended up, out of lack of humility and refused to or blocked to accept alongside
biological evolution the evolutionary trends in psychology and sociology as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/text_pop/l_072_03.html [ Steven Pinker on Evolution of the mind]
“Certainly humans didn't evolve to their present state in
one instant, in one fell swoop, because we know that our ancestors, the species
like Homo erectus and Homo habilis already
had a pretty big brain for a primate of that size. They were already using
tools. They were almost certainly cooperating with one another. So it's not as
if our species was the first to do it; it was building on some earlier stepping
stones.
And
it's unlikely that it happened all at once. You have to remember that not every
creature that was evolving left behind its skull or its tools for our
convenience tens of thousands of years later. Most bones or most tools rot or
get buried and are never found again. So the earliest date at which we find
some fossil or artifact is not the point at which the species first appeared;
it was probably doing its thing for many tens of thousands of years before we
were lucky enough to find something that it left behind that lasted to the
present day.”
Steven
Pinker “describes the self-described field
of evolutionary psychology as a stepping stone toward this end. He calls for
more integration with evolutionary genetics and more generally the fully
rounded approach associated with Nobel Laureate Niko Tinbergen, who stressed
that all evolved traits should be studied from functional, mechanistic,
developmental and phylogenetic perspectives. He also shares his own best idea
that has not yet received the attention that it deserves.”
Human psychology is more
comfortable and conversant dealing with premises, frames of references
and observations rather than through indoctrinations, conditioned prejudices
which will collapse at some point of time when the poor people will be left to
suffer in a vacuous inanity without a proud socio cultural and
psychological identity and will also be very vulnerable to adopt anything and
everything irrespective of its long term benefits or inherent value so
let us impart more importantly humaneness and humanitarian values.
Problems crop
up only when we as a species try to feel that we must authenticate every aspect
of life through social approval further validated through sanctification by
either religion, or substantiation by accepted scientific practices, commercial
success or stamp of socio cultural sanctions.
Any
topic I normally throw into the cauldron of life in context as it is happening
now along with all that has happened and churn it with a churn staff or kirn
swee of contextually relevant observations and also observe the external
impacts that play their part in the evolution of anything/everything.
Too
much of criticism and analysis [especially using a cocktail of Meta
terminologies, remotely relevant or totally irrelevant factors with a mix of
strong spirited information infusion] creates critical paralysis.
Loads
of suggestive or justificatory information do not necessarily contribute to or
help a better understanding and projecting them as if distilled wisdom of some
unique religious or spiritual knowledge when most of the writers are aware of
only distilled spirits.
Nothing eternal can be known eternally by anyone because
everyone of us is basically a mortal as a conscious living being leading a life
inside a human body and mind.
So, when we do
not know what is eternal, how can we make claims or counter claims or worst of
all try to exercise control over or exclusive marketing rights for it?
This is where
religion pitched in as it primarily evolved if one were
to analyze intellectually perhaps as Scott
Atran, a respected Anthropologist called as “belief in hope beyond
reason”.
Erich Fromm, “humans have a need for a
stable frame of reference. Religion apparently fills this need. In effect,
humans crave answers to questions that no other source of knowledge has an
answer to, which only religion may seem to answer. However, a sense of free
will must be given in order for religion to appear healthy. An authoritarian
notion of religion appears detrimental.”
Individual opinions, ideas that inundate the social media space
must be followed, observed and encouraged because after all they manifest
reactions and participation of individuals.
They can at best produce islands of 'micro beliefs leading to
macro behavior' or confirmation bias enhancing group coherence but not
homogenizing madness insisting on ignoring variety and marrying up with
specific identity which was what the mass opinion molding and belief
manufacturing and/or marketing domains mentioned above do namely- religion, politics,
media and any other biased ideological or cultural identity based outfits or communities.
In evolutionary
biology we find that all creations have shed the unnecessary parts or shrunk
them for better survival; in evolutionary sociology too human race has shed too
many models of social groups and narrowed down on a few that would be easier
for global interaction; in languages too, from a few thousands languages that
existed humanity has reduced the number to just a few hundred languages.
Why it is not
being done in religion, i.e. shedding the contextually irrelevant parts –
aspects of socio-cultural life that have outlived their expiry date.
As the great scholar and my favorite author
Bertrand Russell writes in POLITICAL IDEALS (1917)
CHAPTER IVINDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND PUBLIC CONTROL
“The
creative impulses, unlike those that are possessive, are directed to ends in
which one man’s gain are not another man’s loss. The man who makes a scientific
discovery or writes a poem is enriching others at the same time as himself. Any
increase in knowledge or good-will is a gain to all who are affected by it, not
only to the actual possessor. Those who feel the joy of life are a [source of ]
happiness to others as well as to themselves. Force cannot create such things,
though it can destroy them; no principle of distributive justice applies to
them, since the gain of each is the gain of all. For these reasons, the
creative part of a man’s activity ought to be as free as possible from all
public control, in order that it may remain spontaneous and full of vigor. The
only function of the state in regard to this part of the individual life should
be to do everything possible toward providing outlets and opportunities”.
