The Short Version

“If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.”

That’s from Rudyard Kipling’s poem about the first world war, quoted by Roger Cohen in a great column in today’s New York Times. If you look at how we got into the war in Iraq, you’ll see that things haven’t changed much in the last century.

In another of Kipling’s poems from the same period, we see that the origins of financial crises haven’t changed much either:

“In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul:”

Cohen’s theme is the difference between reality on the one hand, and fiction, fantasy, and wishful thinking on the other. When we lose sight of reality, the result is mayhem and suffering of one kind or another. He concludes the piece with a call for realists in the White House. 

I’d like to add that an increase in the number of realists in the general population is not a bad idea either, and for proof of that–if you need any–you should certainly see Bill Maher in “Religulous”. (A great interview with Maher and the director, Larry Charles, is here.)

In spite of Maher’s wonderful sense of humor, I didn’t find myself laughing much. The extent of fantasy, fiction, and wishful thinking in most religions has too many unfortunate consequences for levity, and trying to show believers how out of touch with reality they are is a hopeless task, as Maher’s efforts in that direction demonstrate. His only offer of hope is that, in this country, there are 16 million people who are non-religious, and given the success of other, much smaller minorities in securing their rights, there is reason to think that non-believers might advance their own rights as well–if they got organized.

One of the major difficulties in short-circuiting the deleterious consequences of religion was illustrated in an interview with two young former Mormon’s who fully appreciated the fantasy elements of that religion. When Maher asked why more Mormons didn’t reject these fanciful beliefs, the answer was that to do so was social suicide: rejection by family, friends, and community. 

Therein lies a great difficulty in trying to inject reality into any religion. Renouncing the religion you were raised in often means a loss of social identity, as well as the personal sense of who you are, and that is a difficult prospect to face unless life has prepared you for it. Perhaps our greatest cause for hope is that the march of science and technology will prepare people for this transition to a new identity; educate them in ways of thinking critically, with a greater respect for the constraints of reality. 

Science implies the connectedness of everything, although unfortunately that connectedness is not emphasized as often as it could be. In our interdependence with everything else through the dynamic processes that move the universe, it is possible to forge a vision of ourselves, an identity, that unites all of humankind rather than dividing us into opposing sects as religions do. 

Tom Clark does a great job of presenting that kind of reality-based view of ourselves and of our relationships with each other and the encompassing universe. Here is his introduction to a wealth of resources on the subject:

“Although naturalism may at first seem an unlikely basis for spirituality, a naturalistic vision of ourselves and the world can inspire and inform spiritual experience.  Naturalism understands such experience as psychological states constituted by the activity of our brains, but this doesn’t lessen the appeal of such experience, or render it less profound.  Appreciating the fact of our complete inclusion in nature can generate feelings of connection and meaning that rival those offered by traditional religions, and those feelings reflect the empirical reality of our being at home in the cosmos.” 

Among those resources are several that refer to Buddhism or enlightenment, which points up Buddhism’s lack of supernatural fantasies compared to most other organized religions. Perhaps that and the fact that Buddhists are not advocating anyone’s annihilation are why Maher’s film makes no reference to them.

Science, technology, education, and communication–more of these could diminish the fictions, fantasies, and wishful thinking that lead to wars and financial crises. 

A Real Beauty

	Enter your search terms
	Web www.rentine.com Submit search form

I wrote about Eve Ensler, author and performer of “The Vagina Monologues,” and a talk of hers, “Finding Happiness in Body and Soul,” on TED in an earlier post. Another of her talks, “Security and Insecurity,” was recently made available, and it is equally riveting and filled with wisdom. She eloquently discusses the misguided attempts at security which lead to the creation of us-vs-them states of mind that, in fact, decrease security. If you’ve spent much time with me, you know that us-vs-them is a favorite topic of mine, talked about at length in Bare Brains Episodes Twelve and Thirteen.

Although she begins by saying she’s not going to talk about vaginas, her tales of vagina warriors near the end are highly relevant to her main topic: security/insecurity. Women must often risk their security within conventional and repressive social systems to increase their greater security in a new system that honors their rights. 

Eve’s highly laudable efforts toward educating women in their possibilities and legal protections for them, are vital to such transformations, but while she mentions the role of us-versus-them situations in her discussion of security, it doesn’t come up in her talk of the V-Day efforts. 

There is a built in us-vs-them situation in the sexual differences between women and men. These differences are magnified in societies that repress women, but are important factors, even in the most advanced. If we could understand the biological compulsions that are inherent in being a woman or man, we would have another tool in the arsenal against human suffering. 

It amazes me that women volunteer their bodies for the process of pregnancy and childbirth. To imprison yourself in the demands and inconveniences of pregnancy for nine months is a mammoth undertaking, especially when you know that the outcome is a painful birth, followed by a recovery period that can, with complications, last for the rest of your life. Is it any wonder that women are compelled, both biologically, socially, and psychologically, to carefully choose their partner in this endeavor? 

The compulsion to approach reproduction with caution is powerful, and one which, in my limited experience, many women themselves feel rebellious toward. This rebellion results in some women finding fantasies of rape sexually exciting, even though rape in reality is feared and avoided. With someone they trust, they may openly invite and apparently enjoy pretended rape: In being overwhelmed by force, they are temporarily freed from the constraints of caution.  In extreme cases, this rebellion against compulsion may lead women to put themselves in risky situations where rape is a real possibility.

Men, on the other hand, have strong biological compulsions toward reproduction, but without the compulsion of caution. They feel compelled to disseminate their DNA as widely as possible, and let someone else worry about the aftermath. They are often restrained by social conventions, fortunately, but more problematically, they find themselves in a struggle with women, who control access to the object of male compulsion: sex. He says, “Yes,” she says, “No,” and while she often feels resentment and hostility toward his pressure, he feels resentment and hostility toward her reluctance. It is not a situation designed for harmony; it is exactly the kind of us-vs them situation that Eve so eloquently points to as the cause of much insecurity and hostility in general human affairs.

In my case, I was taught as a child that my penis was a disgusting thing, and later, that seminal fluids were the ultimate contaminant. In my early relations with women, their caution gave further proof that my body was disgusting. When I finally encountered women who wanted sex, I was faced with the odd fact of their desire for what had previously been reinforced as repulsive–confusing, to say the least. I have since learned to love this peculiar contraption that has brought me such pleasure and anxiety, but the re-orchestration of my attitudes was not easy or rapid. There were times when I felt outright hostility toward women for what I experienced as rejection and disdain. Rape fantasies and stories of rape were, indeed, sexually exciting; although, fortunately, my inhibitions were well established. 

When I came to understand the biological causes of our sex-related compulsions, the knowledge gained became a new cause in determining my behavior, and my hostility evaporated. I could see that neither women nor men volunteered to be saddled with their respective compulsions, and that we all deserved compassion.

It may be impossible, for now, to disseminate this kind of naturalistic, evolutionary understanding of behavior very widely, but science and the internet march on, and there is hope.

News! Episode One of the Bare Brains podcast is now available as text, searchable and easily quotable. There’s a link in the sidebar, and right here.

Protection, Rejection, Isolation

	Enter your search terms
	Web www.rentine.com Submit search form