THE HIGHEST FORM OF LIFE
What constitutes the highest form
of living matter? Are we correct in assuming Homo sapiens, rational man, is
supreme? Further, is there actually such an ultimate supreme state, and by what
value is it so determined?
Supremacy of life forms is judged
by man with respect to certain phenomena, the natural functions, which they
exhibit. We are all aware that certain animals have a keener sense of
perception than man; they are stronger and swifter, and their senses of
hearing, sight, and smell exceed those of humans.
Therefore, how do we evaluate the
acclaimed supremacy of man? Man’s outstanding quality is said to be his
intelligence and the traditional supernatural element of soul, which he is likewise
said to possess.
Why is one animal fleeter than
another, or his hearing and scent more acute? Were such faculties arbitrarily
conferred upon him? Would it not be discriminatory to give a preferred
advantage to one species and not to another?
The answer to this depends upon
which of two concepts one assumes for the existence of life forms. In other
words, are all living things the result of spontaneous generation, a coming
into existence at one time by a supernatural fiat, an arbitrary order?
Or are the myriad living things
and the variations of their functions the result of an evolutionary process?
The first of the two concepts cited is primarily supported by religious
doctrines which are proclaimed as sacrosanct literature. However, such claims are
eristic; they provoke argument as to the authenticity of their source.
In other words, is such
literature actually the utterance of a divine decree regarding creation? Or is
this literature actually a human interpretation of person revelation and subsequently
theological concord?
The opposite concept, evolution,
proclaims that life forms have come into existence over eons of time. The
myriad variations, the effects of mutations or changes imposed on the life
forms, are principally the necessity of each species adaptation to a particular
environment. Thus, teeth, hair, claws, wings, the size and form of limbs and
body by nature’s persistence of life, thereby developing the characteristics
best suited for the species survival.
EVOLUTION
What is the primary cause of the
differences between these two concepts –the religious and the evolutionary?
Such is a polemic subject. From a distinctly objective point of view, science
presents the more rational viewpoint in its support of the concept of
evolution.
It begins its approach
inductively and empirically in presenting evidence for its postulations. Such
postulations are not as yet conclusive as to the origin of the first living
cell, though genetic engineering and molecular biology reveal what transition
can occur from alterations of the cell. Further, the results from cattle and
poultry breeding, for example, indicate evolutionary changes in the functions
of a living organism.
Suppose that evolution is found
to be irrefutable? Does that then detract from the majesty of nature? The
foundation of science is natural law; there is, in other words, an innate order
that prevails throughout the cosmos, the universe as a whole.
Philosophically, one may theorize
that such order is not absolute in the universe; in other words, regardless of
the uniformity of certain phenomena observed in galaxies millions of
light-years from earth, this so-called order may not exist in infinite time as
it is now perceived by man.
But since man as yet cannot
refute this basic idea of cosmic order, he must accept it as being a universal
absolute. Order implies intelligence, a conscious persistence of its kind. If such
a phenomena underlies the evolutionary process, is not such an initial cause,
then, a concept approximating the religious idea of a cosmic mind or being
behind all reality?
The important distinction is that
science bases its conclusions on the manifestations of that cosmic cause, the
observation of its phenomena rather than the resort to mythology and the
vicissitudes of human revelation which have been historically noticeably
diverse.
The superiority man ascribes to
himself lies in his intelligence. What are the most obvious characteristics of
this intelligence? What is the nature of the phenomenon? This intelligence can
distinguish externality as apart from the self. The self realizes its own
existence, that it is and that other things are as well. To an extent, this
first characteristic is also exhibited by other living things.
For example, mammals, birds, and
reptiles are attracted to external objects, the result of their natural senses
and appetites for which they are instinctively conditioned. They will seek out
and recognize water and that which produces food and shelter. However, is this
really an example of intelligence? A more exact explanation of intelligence
would be the adaptation to things and conditions newly experienced, rather than
a mere response to a conditioned stimulus.
The second characteristic of
intelligence is the rationalization of experience, that is, to find the cause,
the meaning of what is perceived. It is to know, to acquire an understanding.
It is also to inquire within, to resort to introspection, to explore the self, and
to find for that self a purpose. Simply, I am, but why am I?
MAN’S INTELLIGENCE
We may consider the
above-mentioned characteristics as the aptitudes of an intelligent being such
as the Homo sapiens –man. But is it quite probable that this “superior”
intelligence of man was a necessary evolutionary attribute, rather than a
special power conferred upon him?
Has man survived as the result of
the gradual development of his brain and nervous systems so as to confront the
rigors of his existence? More specifically, is intelligence a defensive
characteristic which man has developed, much as other living organisms have
developed their specific defensive structures?
Man’s intelligence provides him
with a greater versatility than other known living things. He can direct its
use to a greater extent than other organisms. Conversely, however, he can
destroy more of nature and his environment than can other animate forms.
Whereas other organic beings may use nature
exclusively for the essentials, the basic gratification of their physical
desires, man has the faculty of mentally conceiving ends for personal
satisfaction that are destructive not only to himself but to others as well.
This is evident in the aggressive motivation he has for fame, power, and
conquest.
Man has exaggerated two of his
instincts to point of perversion far exceeding their display in any other
species. One of these is CUPIDITY, that is, love of possessions; and the other
is AGGRANDIZEMENT of the self.
For example, rodents, birds, and
certain other animals will collect a food supply for storage. This is an
instinctive drive impelled by hunger and a habitual adaptation to the need of
acquiring food in seasons when it is available.
What the animals acquire may
exceed the necessary amount; however, an inborn impulse compels the
continuation of gathering as long as the food is available. The animal does not
have the reason for determining when the quantity is sufficient for its needs.
EGO
GRATIFICATION
Humans often find pleasure just
in possession itself. In other words, the realization that what they gather may
far exceed what others need and have attained, is gratifying to the ego. Possession
is an extension of the self. Simply, the self is given eminence –superiority is
conferred upon it by the enlargement of its acquisitions.
This extreme exaltation of the
ego often compels man to acquire possessions by using whatever method he can,
without regard for the legal or moral rights of others. The individual, then,
often attempts to justify his motivation by resorting to a false claim of his
“right” to do so. On a larger scale, nations may say that they engaged in
hostile actions by the necessity of “defending the homeland.”
The other frequently perverted
instinct of man is personal esteem, self-aggrandizement. The self is a
collective consciousness of the whole being, the physical aspect and all
personal attributes of which it is aware.
Therefore, the wholeness of being
must have its gratification as well as the organic desires. If the ego does not
assert itself, individuality is suppressed. To such an intelligent being as
man, the physical and mental desires are subordinate to whatever concept or
ideal the self has of itself. There is, therefore, the impulse to emphasize, to
display those characteristics which the individual particularly distinguishes
as the self.
Some of the higher animals, such
as dogs, birds, and primates, for example, particularly express some aspect of
their being, which is an example of a rudimentary self. Man, however, is
commonly known to pervert this self-esteem by striving for fame at the
forfeiture of recognized virtues and without regard for the welfare of others.
This destructive excess of self-esteem is not found among the animals.
The superiority ascribed to man
is particularly emphasized with regard to his possession of soul. This element
is generally defined by religion and moral philosophy, metaphysics, and
mysticism as an innate, immaterial quality of a supernatural source. It is
generally expounded that man is the sole recipient of the ethereal entity of
soul.
This conclusion is arrived at by
categorizing certain sentiments, emotional feelings, stimuli, and ideation
which man cannot directly relate to his organic or physical self; for example,
the sense of rectitude and what he defines as conscience, the evaluation of
right and wrong behavior, and compassion.
There is also the awareness of
self, a consciousness which seems to be set apart from any sensual experience.
Simply, this “I Am” and its judgment, in moral terms of its behavior, is
considered to be the expression of the soul. The empathy of self, which
experiences a sympathy for others similar to that had for itself, is considered
a non-physical motivation, a function of this inner, immaterial substance
called soul.
These qualities attributed to soul are so
unlike the demands, desires, and drives of the body, and so often produce such
a state of euphoria and ecstasy that they are given a divine status. These
experiences appear exalted because of their contrast to the physical nature of
man. It is difficult, then, to make a simple analytical distinction between
those qualities we relate to the whole self, to the “I Am,” on the one hand,
and the nature of soul on the other hand.
MAN’S SOUL
In most religious doctrines, man
has considered the soul in a substantive sense, that is, as having a
particular, unique substance. Such a substance is said to be divinely implanted
in man. It is further contended that the soul is a special endowment of man.
This conclusion is reached by the fact that man has no knowledge of any other
being possessing the same qualities which he designates as the human soul.
However, the phenomenon known as
soul can be explained otherwise without diminishing its status as “divine.” If
we presume that order underlies all cosmic phenomena and that order is conscious
in its constancy of manifestations, then it would be reasonable to assume that
the primary energy which infuses nature and generates life is likewise an
innate intelligence, a consciousness. Such would have the same divine quality
that all reality has, if we accept the concept of a divine causation behind all
existence.
This cosmic, divine energy, with
its consciousness, uses the physical organism, the body, for the expression of
sensations, that awareness which is termed soul. It has not a separate
existence in the primary cosmic essence, but does have individual expression in
the consciousness of man. This universal cosmic essence imbuing all life forms
is metaphorically known as “the soul of the universe.” Metaphorically, we can
liken the physical body of man unto a harp, which, being played upon by the
universal consciousness of the cosmic, produces the melody which man realizes
as soul.
However, this cosmic conscious
energy accompanying life is not confined to man alone. It pervades all animate and
inanimate things in the orderly phenomena of the laws of the material world.
All living things have the same instrument, that is the same capability of
producing that state of consciousness of self and its counterpart, the soul, as
does man.
The difference is that man has
the highest known expression of that phenomenon of consciousness and of those
virtues which he attributes to it. This, however, is not indicative that man
alone possesses such potentialities, or that he has attained the pinnacle of such
development.
Comments
Post a Comment