 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 4: The One Tribe ScenarioIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0. This is a key chapter. Take your time and take it all in. This is about an imaginary tribe - the Hightribe. Over the generations it has evolved explanations for those events in nature which, in effect, it did not, nor could not, understand. It has also evolved values and customs. ‘Truth’ and ‘reality’ for any member of that tribe would be based on the beliefs and customs of the Hightribe. Firstly, lets look at how the tribe evolved. We could start with the fact that the human is a selfish bioent - every living creature is thus. We may be irrational etc, but we are bioents and thus should at least be considered to be as ‘intelligent’ as other species. So, just like elephants, lions, chimpanzees, gorillas etc we like to gather in groups - in tribes - and we co-operate. It is in our best interests! Also, like any other group of bioents, we consider the immediate group of individuals (tribe) as being a distinct and different group from other more distant individuals or groups. In other words in the past we formed tribes just as the lions form prides, just as the elephants form herds etc. The existence, and survival, of any particular herd or pride etc is of importance to the animals within that particular herd without any regard whatsoever to the concept of the survival of all members of that particular species. A pride looks after its own survival; the survival of the pride in the next ‘territory’ is not a consideration. In fact, the existence of the next pride is seen as an actual threat, as such; thus each pride keeps to itself. It is thus with humans. This is very ‘naturally’ logical because of the nature of the tribal structure and also that, in the past, any tribe would not necessarily know of the existence of many other tribes, apart from those in its proximity. One thing is important to understand, and that is that tribes are not formed because of any higher ideal, or selfless act, of desiring to help others. It is based on selfishness. Humans can survive better when co-operating with others. This makes sense when hunting, when building huts, etc. If there was no co-operation then there would be a constant struggle between individuals over available resources. Humans may be stupid but they are not that stupid! Again - this is purely natural. So we come to a point where a tribe called the Hightribe has formed and exists. But, as with any other group of animals, or bioents, it will have rules which must be obeyed to ensure the survival of the tribe. These rules, on one level, will be very simple and, dare I say it - logical (but only in a ‘natural’ way). These will be rules which literally keep the tribe from disintegrating. For example if there is no rule against killing one another, within the tribe, then there will be open warfare within the tribe - and the result of that will most likely make it the one generation tribe unless the tribe splits into sub tribes and then, in reality, you are back to the tribal situation logic. So tribal rule number one could be ‘the not killing of another members of the tribe’. This is a simple rule, not based on a belief in god, or a belief in ‘the rights of Man’, nor even a reflection of the belief that, in moral terms, killing another person is wrong. It is merely the natural logic of having harmony (non fatal aggression) within a collection of bioents. And one can also assume that certainly, early in the history of humans, these tribes would be based on blood relatives, and close family ties. The tribe was, as such, the extended family. Another fairly important and natural law would regulate the ownership of property and the protection of an individual's property rights. If any member could take what they liked from another member then the tribe would be in a state of constant turmoil within itself; it wouldn't survive long, again, unless there was a split. This rule would extend to the protection of the family group, or sexual pairing, though this, in effect, would be based on the usual male mindset that the female of the species belonged to the male, and could be seen as just an inclusion to the laws governing the property of the individual. But, please do not take the above paragraph or two as an indication that humans are rational and therefore able to organise themselves into a harmonious tribe. It just reflects natural behaviour. If it works for members of the animal kingdom then it should work for the human bioents. Evolution would ‘favour’ those tribes which co-operated thus ensuring their survival. Because of the nature of human value acquirement so far discussed this tribe will have created a set of explanations of life. As to whether these explanations are true and based on reality, is not relevant at all; this is how they explain their subjective view of their universe. They will have gods/goddesses, rituals and ceremonies, taboos, and tribal laws. They will also have a tribal structure; a chief, a ‘holy-man’, elders, youths, children, females (the married and the unmarried). Although this scenario may seem to be totally removed from the lives of people especially in the West today this situation will be shown to be an integral part of our daily lives and evaluation process without us realising it. Human nature is human nature is ... human nature. So growing up in the Hightribe will be an enjoyable experience. The children will stay at home and play with their friends. They will learn the ways of the tribe during the day to day experiences. The parents will teach them what to believe as regards the gods (their names and their desires and methods of placating them). The parents will teach them the meaning of the tribal rituals and ceremonies. They will learn what to eat and what not to eat (both as regards what is unhealthy and what is taboo). They will learn how to behave - they will learn the accepted behavioural patterns - for that particular tribe. These will be the patterns which are considered as deserving of respect and admiration, and demonstrate that the individual is an accepted member of that tribe. This will be their understanding of morals. This will be their understanding of truth. This will be their understanding of reality. They will learn their place, and their family's, within the tribal structure. The youths will have to undergo some type of initiation ceremony which will see them leap the psychological gap from childhood to adulthood. (At this point I don't want to get ‘bogged down’ in discussions as to the difference of treatment towards a young male as distinct from that towards a young female; here I will deal with a male youth). It will be some trial to determine if he can be considered as belonging to the male adult group within the Hightribe. As with any tribal species, it is important to understand one's place within the tribe. Unlike modern life and its modern tribal structures, it is the elders who have the wisdom and the youths who learn from them. Understanding nature and survival techniques are of paramount importance and the youths are ‘forced’, because of the nature of the tribal structure, to accept the status quo. They want to attain the ‘title’ of adult along with its subsequent respect and rights. As to who decided what the initiation ceremony, or act, should be may be forgotten in the mists of history. It is certainly not the outsider who wants to become a member who decides. It is always the members of the group who decide who should be included within the group, and once the rules are laid down as regards membership, it is difficult to change those rules; for to change the rules actually puts into question those who are already members - those who actually did partake in the original initiation ceremony. This is tradition. This is culture. This is part of their value structure. But whatever the actual ritual or initiation ceremony is, or whatever action is required, or whatever symbol is needed doesn't have to be rational in any manner whatsoever. Physically, a youth does not become an adult in the space of a few seconds. But in tribal terms it is an official tribal promotion and thus has great significance. To a major extent the process is an artificial one; thus the ceremony becomes significant, not in objective terms, but in subjective terms. To be a member of the Hightribe but not to be considered as being a member of the Hightribe adult group, in effect means not to be considered as being one of the ‘men’, not to be considered as being equal - equal to those who deserve and get respect. Doing whatever initiation action is required thus obtains respect and is therefore a ‘good’ act, even if that challenge is the killing of a member of another tribe, for, one could say (in subjective terms) that that act gains respect from those who are respected. The same subjective consideration applies to all the laws and taboos etc of the Hightribe. If an action brings condemnation and causes the person to lose tribal respect then that act is tribally wrong and who is to say that somewhere else beyond the sphere or knowledge of the Hightribe that that same act may bring the person great respect and admiration? No one knows - and it is not relevant at all to the Hightribe! They live by their rules and thus they decide what is morally right and wrong, and those who are members of the Hightribe only know (or live) the Hightribe values. This is their only reality. Will life be good for the members of the Hightribe? Of course! And are they happy being members of the Hightribe? Of course! And why should they be happy? Because they have organised themselves into a community in which they can live, feel a member of, feel equal to (not necessarily to all other members) and have an enjoyable life. They are not only members of the Hightribe but are an integral part of the Hightribe - they are the Hightribe. Thus, their morals are not considered as being decided by others and ‘forced’ on them, but rather that the morals of the Hightribe are their morals. The god of the Hightribe is their god. The Hightribe initiation ceremony is real and true and valid - for it is their initiation ceremony. The chief is their chief. The ‘witch doctor’ is their witch doctor. Life is good therefore the tribal rules are good. Life is good therefore the tribal beliefs are correct. This ‘understanding’ is instinctive, for the laws of the Hightribe actually define the members of that tribe. So to say that you are a member of the Hightribe means that the Hightribe values and laws and morals are yours also. Another aspect to life being good is that there is protection in being a member of the Hightribe. After all, the laws that govern a member from causing harm to another member also protects themselves. This is what mutual co-operation, and mutual respect is all about. This is the reward for accepting regulation - a good life and respect - it pays to co-operate with each other. Everyone knows their place within the Hightribe and everyone knows that they are protected by being a member of this wonderful tribe. They can (subjectively) truly consider themselves a civilised tribe. Let me introduce a second tribe - the Lowtribe. They have their own set of tribal laws etc. First and foremost it is vital to understand that the Hightribe traits (rules, regulations, ceremonies, understanding and knowledge etc) are only relevant to those members of that tribe, within that tribe. That is the logic of the tribe. That is the logic of any tribe. For example, some actions may be considered to be taboo in one tribe but not necessarily so in another tribe. Because of human tribal behaviour, the following isn't merely a ‘scenario’ - there are a great many examples of this from history. The warriors of the Hightribe look at the other tribe, the Lowtribe, and see young women, cattle, property and want them for themselves - this is very natural. They decide to attack the Lowtribe and rape the women, steal the cattle and property, kill some of the members of the tribe, bring back some of them for enslavement. They also destroy the images of the gods of the Lowtribe. They return, with their booty and slaves, happy and contented. This scenario has happened so often throughout history that it well and truly depicts the nature of tribal humans. But let us concentrate on the Hightribe and what they are thinking. Do they feel ashamed of their actions? Of course not! They are proud of their actions! This episode in their history will be remembered with fondness and pride for generations to come. It ‘proves’ that they are a ‘superior’ tribe; that they are ‘courageous’; that their gods were looking upon them with a positive attitude. This proves that their god is stronger and more valid than that ‘defeated’ god of the Lowtribe. So why should they feel guilt, or shame? According to their morals they have behaved in an exemplary fashion. Not only will they not be ashamed of this undeserved barbaric attack (in objective terms), but they will boast of it and recount details of it around the fires at night. They will be even more proud of belonging to the Hightribe as a result of this foray into the Lowtribe area. So, where are all the civilised morals and beliefs of the Hightribe? The logic is so simple. When they raped the females of the Lowtribe were they breaking any of the Hightribe laws? The answer is no. The Hightribe laws are beneficial for the members of the Hightribe. The laws against raping a female from the Hightribe were there for a very obvious reason. If Hightribe men went around raping the females belonging to other Hightribe members it would lead to the disintegration of the Hightribe, but raping females from the Lowtribe firstly, was not breaking the ‘do-not-rape law’ of the Hightribe and secondly, was an added insult to the men of the Lowtribe. So should the men from the Hightribe feel that their actions broke their laws and thus was a reflection of their barbaric and savage nature? Absolutely not! They broke no laws and thus could feel certain of their civilised and decent culture, and their civilised and decent nature. The same arguments, or logic, would be used as regards killing people from the Lowtribe, stealing their property, and taking some of the Lowtribe back as slaves etc. As regards destroying the images of the Lowtribe gods, suffice to say that this would be seen as actually doing good - destroying an enemy god - destroying the enemy of the Hightribe god. In effect any god could not be considered as being the god of all tribes; as having a positive regard to the well-being of all tribes. The god of any tribe belonged to that tribe; it was looking after the interests of that particular tribe. Thus it is obvious that the tribe would instinctively come to the conclusion that their god desired the destruction of the other tribe. ‘This was the will of god’. So there would be plenty of pride in those actions. Thus, theoretically and logically, we could have members of a tribe which behaved in a savage and barbaric manner and yet who were proud of their actions and considered themselves as being totally civilised; and they would be genuine in those beliefs. Apart from the simple explanation that the members of the Hightribe were merely subjective as regards their morals and values etc there is a much more significant understanding, or logic, which is parallel, but subconscious and this is the UT Instinct. It is the UT Instinct - that human evaluation mechanism - controlled by their subjective morals and values etc which gives logic to the above. But before we investigate the UT Instinct and all its facets lets take a look at another ‘realistic’ scenario - ie situations where it is not possible to have a single separate tribe isolated and distinct, from all other tribes; for, although there may be a few tribes in jungles and forests around the world, for most of us (tribes) it is a case of intermingling - this does not change the human evaluation mechanism but merely allows us to investigate it because the UT Instinct is in full flow. This chapter is very important and explains so much of the logic around the UT Instinct. I will try and sum up the logic. The Hightribe are civilised ie they live together in harmony; they have laws; they have religion etc. This PROVES - to THEM - they are civilised. The Lowtribe do not have the same laws etc merely for the fact of being a different tribe. Thus firstly the Lowtribe are seen as a threat to the civilised Hightribe and secondly the respect which each member of the Hightribe give and receive from each other is exclusive to the Hightribe. The Lowtribe do not deserve the same respect. The Lowtribe only deserve contempt. The Lowtribe do not deserve to be treated in a civilised manner. It would be seen as actually wrong to treat the Lowtribe with equality. The heading to this section may give the impression that I am out of touch with reality but we, as humans, are an integral part of the human species and therefore can rarely ‘step outside’ our place within the tribe to see objectively - to see that hidden reality. There is a very important point to understand in that heading. Perception (of the value of an individual) within the human tribe is everything. A person may be the most intelligent, the most creative, the most generous, the most responsible, the most ‘whatever’ within the human tribe but unless that judgment is external ie from other members of that tribe, it is irrelevant. Take two individuals: firstly George Bush (the president of the USA) and Samleah (a woman living in the Gobi desert - this person is fictitious!). If we take a look at these individuals leaving aside all the external traits bestowed on them you should be able to see that they are equal - Samleah is a person - George is a person. In fact most likely Samleah would be better at surviving by her wits than George but we will give him the benefit of the doubt and consider him equal. But hold on! - George Bush is considered, by many, as being the most powerful man on the planet, and in a general way he is. The reason is not because of George Bush himself - his internal power - but rather, the power given to him by millions of people. His importance, his power, his fame, his authority is only thus because OTHERS consider him so. How a person values beself has no importance within the tribe - it is how others within the tribe value that person. We want to belong. We do not want to be a nobody - a non-person. This is not a conscious decision, or conscious logic, this is a part of our being. This is what we are. To (want to) be a member of an UT Group is as natural and inevitable as breathing. AND, just as important, not to be a member of an UT Group cuts the person off from a position of worth (as judged by those within that UT Group). If you take a look at ‘society’ you should be able to see that this is how and why it works as it does. A lot of human motivation is geared towards the judgments, and approval, of others. We cannot but consider how others will judge our actions (and image). NB Please note that the heading to this section is not written on the basis that George and his Republican party lost control of the Congress and the Senate. That is just coincidence. Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|