I have found most of Nate Hagens' interviews helpful. In one, a psychology guy is asked about oxytocin, testosterone and dopamine. He says oxytocin DOES spur nurturing, caring feelings--but only toward those we see as "us." Testosterone does spur aggression, but only against those we see as "them." What this suggests to me is that tribalism, Us versus Them thinking, is hardwired. And I can see a Darwinian reason why: for most of our history as a species (if not all of it) human survival depended upon the group. Tribes could thrive, individuals alone would likely die.. But early groups lived cheek-to-jowl--there would inevitably be tensions, rivalries, grudges...yet rivals had to go on hunts together, raise each other's orphaned children. I can see where it would be a great relief for these frustrated feelings, to have an outside group to cast these hostilities upon--scapegoats.
Yet we can rise above this proclivity, and this is the essence of wisdom--having a longer view. We are in the place we are, I think for two reasons. One is that wisdom and power are at opposite poles--those attracted to power are the least wise. The least wise of all are sociopaths, and these are the people who rule the world today. In the deep past, in tribes, they could not take power because the whole tribe knew who and what they were--sociopaths learn how to mimic psych-normal empathy and compassion, but they don't get good at it until adulthood. In modern, complex societies, anonymity allows a sociopath bent on power and wealth to hide what s/he is from the people around who must be manipulated and climbed over.
The other reason is sociopathic CULTURES. Agriculture allowed sedentary life, which allowed population growth, and grain storage, which led to armies and guards and hierarchy and patriarchy. The nub of the human predicament is that when an aggressive, expansionary group wants to take land from a peaceable, egalitarian group, it makes war on the latter and nearly always wins. Eventually it needs yet more land, and makes war on another neighbor. To this day, humanity has not found a solution to the problem--a culture based on domination--of women by men, of children by adults, of dark-skinned people by palefaces, of everyone else by humans, above all--has taken over nearly the entire world. Thus the ridiculous idea that war is normal, that a reasonable way to solve a conflict between two groups is to have the young men of the two groups kills each other until one can't stand it anymore (modified in recent decades by having them mostly kill civilians instead).
It's interesting that when Europeans came to "the New World" and encountered tribal peoples, whose cultures embodied great wisdom,, they rarely saw that wisdom--typically for humans, they saw each way the Others differed from their own as weird, wrong, perverse, inferior.. But when whites were kidnapped by Natives, and spent some time with them, they often refused to go back to the white when they had the opportunity, whereas captured "Indians" went home at the first opportunity--something Benjamin Franklin remarked on. I figure it's because it takes time to overcome cultural conditioning. Time that allowed white to see the good side of Native culture, while the Natives had already seen the whites' technological mastery and were not impressed with their lifestyles or culture.
"We are going through dark times that indeed try the soul, but if we can see our way through our isms to our commonality, to that light in our eyes where the whole universe dwells, we can restore the circle of life."
I remember when I was in my early twenties I would sometimes see the light in the eyes of others, the light where the whole universe dwells, and I would find it very difficult to pretend that it wasn't happening, that it wasn't overwhelming and potent to the utmost. I felt I had to pretend in this way because no one around me ever spoke of the light in the eyes where the whole universe dwells. It was never mentioned, and I suspected most folks could not see and feel this "light". I didn't want to stand out as strange, weird, "other". So I kept the extraordinary potency of looking into another's eyes with this knowledge to myself.
It was easier to be bowled over by a butterfly or a honey bee. Because there was no risk of ostracism in having a fire in my heart with these.
Anyway, nothing can be more ordinary than to be blown away by the light in ANYONE's eyes. And nothing could be more extraordinary. That's the thing about seeing the light. It's both ordinary and extraordinary to the nth degree.
But it's not so easy for me to see plainly and directly anymore. My heart having been so badly broken by this world. It requires an almost absolute kind of tenderness to be dazzled so by the ordinary.
"In terms of having a basic worldview, nature teaches us complexity and wholeness. It educates us about the inability of our minds to fit everything into a singular rigid framework, but instead to see life as a whole embodying dynamic complexity and interplay of opposites. A mind tuned to nature does not lend itself to narrow rigidity, but fluidity."
Nicely said! Did you mean to say "shared worldview"?
The sacredness of the natural world is my religion. Nature is my teacher.
I think this is the reality that so many ordinary people live. We know we have our differences, but want to be good neighbours. I'd like to see more of this geopolitically. It's really the only civilized path to take, and what we have isn't working. The horrors of what's going on in Gaza show this all too clearly.
The only thing I would question is where you say "When it is perceived that resources are limited, such as the limited land and water of Palestine-Israel, the question is who gets kicked off the bus." "Palestine-Israel" is not a singular entity when considering limited water or other life-sustaining reaources. Land, yes, for each, but land is developed for one, not the other. My point is that there is austerity for one, not for the other, and that's been ongoing for decades. Only one officially gets kicked off the bus, despite the backlash inflicted on the other. In the broader sense, austerity is manufactured by global energy, finance, and weapons, etc. Climate change makes it all worse and I believe that course is now being accelerated purposefully to increase the conundrum of austerity, greed, othering, and ever more investment in munitions. I could go on and so could you. I know you'll agree there are other isms to be considered such as the extremes of capitalism which tend toward either fascist flavor (meaning owned by giant financial interests whether or not backed up with militarism) or communist flavor (same, just with a pretense of providing for the public - think China) - both of which at their best keep the bulk of the population under control with just enough to be complacent and compliant. Neither of which allow for any public citizens to make any transformative difference in society beyond neighborly altruism - spiritually helpful to the individual but not enough to curb the wholesale suffering and slaughter.
I have found most of Nate Hagens' interviews helpful. In one, a psychology guy is asked about oxytocin, testosterone and dopamine. He says oxytocin DOES spur nurturing, caring feelings--but only toward those we see as "us." Testosterone does spur aggression, but only against those we see as "them." What this suggests to me is that tribalism, Us versus Them thinking, is hardwired. And I can see a Darwinian reason why: for most of our history as a species (if not all of it) human survival depended upon the group. Tribes could thrive, individuals alone would likely die.. But early groups lived cheek-to-jowl--there would inevitably be tensions, rivalries, grudges...yet rivals had to go on hunts together, raise each other's orphaned children. I can see where it would be a great relief for these frustrated feelings, to have an outside group to cast these hostilities upon--scapegoats.
Yet we can rise above this proclivity, and this is the essence of wisdom--having a longer view. We are in the place we are, I think for two reasons. One is that wisdom and power are at opposite poles--those attracted to power are the least wise. The least wise of all are sociopaths, and these are the people who rule the world today. In the deep past, in tribes, they could not take power because the whole tribe knew who and what they were--sociopaths learn how to mimic psych-normal empathy and compassion, but they don't get good at it until adulthood. In modern, complex societies, anonymity allows a sociopath bent on power and wealth to hide what s/he is from the people around who must be manipulated and climbed over.
The other reason is sociopathic CULTURES. Agriculture allowed sedentary life, which allowed population growth, and grain storage, which led to armies and guards and hierarchy and patriarchy. The nub of the human predicament is that when an aggressive, expansionary group wants to take land from a peaceable, egalitarian group, it makes war on the latter and nearly always wins. Eventually it needs yet more land, and makes war on another neighbor. To this day, humanity has not found a solution to the problem--a culture based on domination--of women by men, of children by adults, of dark-skinned people by palefaces, of everyone else by humans, above all--has taken over nearly the entire world. Thus the ridiculous idea that war is normal, that a reasonable way to solve a conflict between two groups is to have the young men of the two groups kills each other until one can't stand it anymore (modified in recent decades by having them mostly kill civilians instead).
It's interesting that when Europeans came to "the New World" and encountered tribal peoples, whose cultures embodied great wisdom,, they rarely saw that wisdom--typically for humans, they saw each way the Others differed from their own as weird, wrong, perverse, inferior.. But when whites were kidnapped by Natives, and spent some time with them, they often refused to go back to the white when they had the opportunity, whereas captured "Indians" went home at the first opportunity--something Benjamin Franklin remarked on. I figure it's because it takes time to overcome cultural conditioning. Time that allowed white to see the good side of Native culture, while the Natives had already seen the whites' technological mastery and were not impressed with their lifestyles or culture.
"We are going through dark times that indeed try the soul, but if we can see our way through our isms to our commonality, to that light in our eyes where the whole universe dwells, we can restore the circle of life."
I remember when I was in my early twenties I would sometimes see the light in the eyes of others, the light where the whole universe dwells, and I would find it very difficult to pretend that it wasn't happening, that it wasn't overwhelming and potent to the utmost. I felt I had to pretend in this way because no one around me ever spoke of the light in the eyes where the whole universe dwells. It was never mentioned, and I suspected most folks could not see and feel this "light". I didn't want to stand out as strange, weird, "other". So I kept the extraordinary potency of looking into another's eyes with this knowledge to myself.
It was easier to be bowled over by a butterfly or a honey bee. Because there was no risk of ostracism in having a fire in my heart with these.
Anyway, nothing can be more ordinary than to be blown away by the light in ANYONE's eyes. And nothing could be more extraordinary. That's the thing about seeing the light. It's both ordinary and extraordinary to the nth degree.
But it's not so easy for me to see plainly and directly anymore. My heart having been so badly broken by this world. It requires an almost absolute kind of tenderness to be dazzled so by the ordinary.
"In terms of having a basic worldview, nature teaches us complexity and wholeness. It educates us about the inability of our minds to fit everything into a singular rigid framework, but instead to see life as a whole embodying dynamic complexity and interplay of opposites. A mind tuned to nature does not lend itself to narrow rigidity, but fluidity."
Nicely said! Did you mean to say "shared worldview"?
The sacredness of the natural world is my religion. Nature is my teacher.
I think this is the reality that so many ordinary people live. We know we have our differences, but want to be good neighbours. I'd like to see more of this geopolitically. It's really the only civilized path to take, and what we have isn't working. The horrors of what's going on in Gaza show this all too clearly.
The only thing I would question is where you say "When it is perceived that resources are limited, such as the limited land and water of Palestine-Israel, the question is who gets kicked off the bus." "Palestine-Israel" is not a singular entity when considering limited water or other life-sustaining reaources. Land, yes, for each, but land is developed for one, not the other. My point is that there is austerity for one, not for the other, and that's been ongoing for decades. Only one officially gets kicked off the bus, despite the backlash inflicted on the other. In the broader sense, austerity is manufactured by global energy, finance, and weapons, etc. Climate change makes it all worse and I believe that course is now being accelerated purposefully to increase the conundrum of austerity, greed, othering, and ever more investment in munitions. I could go on and so could you. I know you'll agree there are other isms to be considered such as the extremes of capitalism which tend toward either fascist flavor (meaning owned by giant financial interests whether or not backed up with militarism) or communist flavor (same, just with a pretense of providing for the public - think China) - both of which at their best keep the bulk of the population under control with just enough to be complacent and compliant. Neither of which allow for any public citizens to make any transformative difference in society beyond neighborly altruism - spiritually helpful to the individual but not enough to curb the wholesale suffering and slaughter.
Like those grasses change in society and nature happens slowly and then suddenly. We can hope in this.