Survival On The Fringe
LIFE
is a co-ordination
of disciplined elements
among which
the work is divided.
therefore, the social
underlies the vital.
This is so in those societies
where the individual
must be ready to sacrifice itself
for the whole:
the hive and the anthill.
This result is obtained by instinct
which is an extension
of nature’s work of organization.
This means that nature
is more concerned with society
than with the individual.
If that is no longer the case with man,
… the inventive efforts by the creation
of a new species has found in humanity alone,
a means of continuing its activity
through individuals,
on whom there has devolved,
along with intelligence,
the faculty of initiative,
independence and liberty.
If intelligence now threatens
to break up social cohesion
… there must be a counterpoise
to intelligence if society
is to go on.
This counterpoise cannot be instinct
because the place of instinct
has been taken by intelligence.
The same effect must be produced
by the residue of instinct
which survives
on the fringe of intelligence.
Since intelligence
works by means of
representations,
it calls up “imaginary” ones
which will hold their own
against the representation of reality,
and will succeed,
through the agency of intelligence itself,
to counteract the work of intelligence.
This would be
the explanation
of the myth-making faculty.
— excerpt, The Two Sources Of Morality And Religion
By Henri Bergson p. 119
I owe you the reader an explanation for this almost verbatim lengthy quote. I have not concealed my deep concern, even some pessimism over the direction that we are taking in society. These few lines from Bergson illuminate the essential importance of an ordered society for individual well being, or “happiness” to express the matter simply.
The present state of paralysis in our representative democracy, is the result of a populace reacting to the disconnect between the career politicians who apparently no longer represent them. The long standing gap between the people and those chosen voices to represent them grows ever wider and the pain of a society out-of-joint is palpable.
Therefore, a unrestrained egoist was elected to office at the 2016 election, — like a desperate “hail-Mary” pass by citizens to save themselves from continued deprivation of decent employment, and erosion of their physical health, as the cost of medical care continues to outpace the resources of all too many citizens. As far as I can tell the “hail-Mary” pass failed and the clock has run out on that game. Unsatisfactory under-employment remains, as does the sky-high cost of health care. Now we have an unstable chief executive added to the mix, who is manifestly unable to discipline his own ego in addition to the long standing need for repair and a re-calibration of our society.
I will not go on. Bergson suggests here that cooperation and coordination is the fundamental basis for life. Ego, and egoism which is the result of intelligence requires restraint if the social ties are not to be destroyed by assertion of the individual. Bergson points to the necessary and productive myth-making-function of religion as that which disciplines and provides a boundary to the ego.
I think that he is right.
12 thoughts on “Survival On The Fringe”
An interesting treaties no doubt. There are elements with which I agree and, as you noted in your email that accompanied the link to this blog, our perspective can be skewed or even completely off base. We all suffer from the Dunning-Kreuger Effect to varying degrees and I am certainly no exception.
Yet with that caveat, I believe that our tendencies toward embracing the mythical are not a way of reining in the ego, but a way of negating science to obliterate the true nature of who we are which would, therefore, expose our very real limitations. If a god of some sort tells each and every one of us we are special, a member of the chosen people, our ego supersedes the needs of the group as a whole. This is what we see playing out in the horrific behavior of those who espouse Christian tenets while brandishing weapons of hate against the seemingly unwashed and faceless hoards. Religion is the crucible into which we can place any fear and prejudice and find a justification for our feelings. Enlightenment, mindfulness, and self-examination are our only salvation from this current nightmare. Finding our tribal affiliation is not that difficult, but working with this disparate group of seemingly like-minded folks is the key. The diminishment of the uber-ego is achievable only be setting aside the voo-doo of magical thinking and embracing the science of the human mind.
There was a time in our past when the church, as the custodian of religious purity, and of affiliation for all believers, stood four square against reason, and the method of knowledge which lead to scientific discoveries. The church vs Galileo for example. Reason prevailed because religion in that day was the handmaiden of state power, church and state were one.
Now we live in the age of reason, Rationality with a capital R is the god to which all pay tribute. Reason in this form, has allowed us to rape the earth, to put profit above every other value, as Capitalism is tightly associated with the rational. We are blinded by the light of our success and cannot see that that there is darkness as well as light in the aspiration of humanity to be middle-class like many of us Americans.
Thus my appeal for consideration of a religious sensibility, as the entre to reestablish a link to nature and to our inner selves which we neglect, carried helter-skelter as we are by the rapid current of the zeitgeist in which we live. Can we believe any longer that a Palestinian peasant rose from the dead, and thus was divine? No. That does nothing to discredit the possibility that from the surviving stories of Jesus words and manner of relating to others, — that a god-like humanity is modeled for our consideration. A better world is possible!
I think this is no different than the mindful self-examination which you advocate. We belong to the tribe of humanity and a mythos is necessary so that we can appreciate and explore the possibilities, and overcome the obstacles this presents.
I think I agree with Bergson on this one, if what he is trying to say is that religion is supposed to keep the ego in check by its concept that everything does not revolve around one’s self, but rather upon something greater…something the ego vehemently tries fight to fight, because an ego would prefer that everything is about them. There certainly is a correlation between what Tom Wolfe brilliantly referred to as the “me generation” and the declining of religion. Which has now gone into hyper speed, especially with the election of an egotistical prez, and a zillion people on the Internet conveying their opinion, and of course, the nedia’s talking heads’ instant analysis of everything, even before any one person has a chance to process or enact anything to see what happens (and what needs to be outcomes even need to be or are worthy of being analyzed.)
But, the problem is not with religion’s outlook that there is more to everything than is us. The problem is religions not sticking to their insistence that there is more to any one of us and instead their all too often joining the fray of egotism with things like “we don’t agree with Trump, but we’ll let him spread his egotism because he says he’s against abortion” or “ we don’t like his policies or chaotic approach, but we’ll put up with him because he’s against abortion.” Religions need to stand up for their own ideals and say, “only God is God and no man is God, even if Trump keeps trying to convey he is godlike.”
In response to Tobin’s comment about “the chosen people”, it seems he is misunderstanding what that means on the Jewish religion. It solely means that one is supposed to remember that if other people lose their wits, a Jew is supposed to remember to not lose his or her wits…on the premise that a Jewish person is expected, per their religious culture, to be chosen to be the one to remember it’s not all about us, but about something more, something greater than oneself…greater mysteries that we can only try to comprehend but never really will be able to. It is this misunderstand about the term, “the chosen people” that has caused Jews through the last 1000 years to try every way to avoid that phrase because it potentially offends many and seems like bragging, when it is meant to be the exact opposite…to remember humbleness and remind others of the importance of humbleness. For a lot more on this subject, the late Rabbi, Mordecai Kaplan wrote a whole lot on the chosen people subject and how the phrase can be misconstrued and should be avoided by Jews as we now live in assimilated dualistic societies and democracies, rather than in segregated Shetland, apart from the the rest of societies.
Speaking more of religion, (not corrupted versions of religions, which is a separate thing), it pretty rare, except in some extremely corrupted religious segments (that sadly get featured in the media rather than mainstream religions), where a mainstream religion will discount science. The majority look to science as a way to
explore the mysteries of life, which is what religion’s try to do. I have never actually personally ever heard any religious person ever dispute or ignore science. I’ve heard of such on TV or in an attention grabbing internet article, but I’ve personally never come across such a person in person. My synagogue has a number of interfaith gatherings, discussions…everyone is always just trying to understand life and finds science helpful.
But, back to Bergson. I think what I mentioned is what he was trying to say. That it is religions’ role to remind us that there is more to life than just one’s own ego self, though that ego self is constantly trying to act like it’s all powerful, when of course, it is not as each of us is only one person who knows very little concerning the mysteries of life, though it tries to convince us otherwise.
Good article, Jerry. Anything that provokes thought, sharing, different perspectives…is always good (meaning healthy.)
Jeff
Jeff, you have packed much into your response to Bergson. Bergson was a world-class thinker and provokes many thoughts for me as well when I read him. It is not surprising that we moderns have a problem with egoism. We live in essentially man-made, artificial environments at some distance from the power and majesty of nature, and our capabilities are greater than humanity has ever known. There are the antibiotics and the range of therapies for diseases which at one time were invariably fatal. Can we forgive ourselves for forgetting that we are not the center of the universe, infinite in our powers? We need to remember that we are not the center and are a speck on the periphery and — forgive ourselves for being so foolish to think otherwise.
I find the Jewish tradition of refusing to assign a label to god, to name the divinity important, and reasonable. Naming things is now we bring them into our control, and thereby lose sight of the depth, of the mystery of their being. God as the one who is not, and cannot be named, is a functioning agnosticism which strikes me as fruitful. Why should I not make common cause with Catholics, or Baptists, or physicists, or poets of good will, without first going through a faith-credentials check? We are indeed journeying in the same direction if we are advocates for humanity, and especially for the least among us. Truth and beauty are the hallmarks of the divine, and ought we not to point out those dimensions of experience to one another wherever we are fortunate to happen upon them?
As to a comparison between science and religion, they are not comparable. The language and the objective of science and that of religion is different, with little if any overlap. The purpose of science is to exercise control over “reality”. The purpose of religion is gain a sense of the overarching beauty and meaning of reality. Two different and indispensable projects…. As Wittgenstein would have said the two are different language games.
Hmmm. Interesting how perspectives can differ. Perhaps I am more highly influenced by Judaism than I realized. In Judaism the purpose of both science and religion is to try to better understand what is not known (and that is a whole lot) to gain wisdom and knowledge, to make our lives and lives of others better. The sphere is the same. Science helps us better understand God’s creations so we can better understand and help to create world given us. No conflicts. Science helps reveals things about the unknown which religion as well as science questions. It’s all part of the same religious exploration. Just as philosophy can be. The only difference between Greek and Roman philosophy and Jewish philosophy…which goes way back to the Greeks’ and Roman’s difference with the Jewish philosophers, is the Jewish philosophers felt there was a place for inclusion of a God outside of nature , as instead, being its creator…so God is not only in nature by nature it’s creation, but is also outside of nature as it’s creator…and therefore beyond the bounds of nature itself (which can be the unknown or unknowable) whereas the Greeks and Romans felt otherwise.
Deep stuff.
Jeff
Jeff, I believe there is a reason why there are more culturally Jewish atheists per capita than from any other religious background. It is the mantra of Judaism to question and in the age of science, when one does question everything, it must be difficult for a person to remain certain of an omnipresent deity. In my book, this is a good thing.
Jeff, I completely understand the connection of the term “Chosen People” with regard to Judaism and the discomfort of that moniker. If I had meant it as a reference to Judaism I would have stated it that way. My sense is that all people of all religions believe their version is the true version, the one unalterable version of faith and a god (or gods) and that they are chosen by their god to spread the word. That’s what was meant. Nothing more, nothing less.
But, Tobin…not all religions believe their version is the true version, the one unalterable version of faith and God. Thus my reference to interfaith discussions I referenced I have been part of. I’ve participated in such groupings at my synagogue and it’s always been a matter of sharing perspectives, interpretations, without anyone ever claiming one is true while the other is not. Just different perspectives, interpretations, different ways of experiencing a divine or historical aspect. All always being very careful to not claim one is better than the other. Don’t get me wrong, I am always surprised by such respective tones, especially from some religious segments who are stereotyped as being supposedly my way or the byway. But, I have not experienced that as being so in any interfaith religious discussion. All seems to understand that religious discussions are a sharing discussion and not a political discussion. I have found discussions on religion to always incorporate and have an understanding that everyone experiences religious experiences and/or faith in their own way that connects or doesn’t connect with themselves. A very cool thing about it. As it’s often stated, God reveals itself to different people in different ways all for a good reason…which translates to diversity, all for a good reason. Now, that does not mean that there is no corruption occurring. There certainly is, especially when one or a group adopts a non-realistic approach of theirs is better than another’s faith or religion or lack of it. Rather than just share one another’s experience with it with one another. Now…I will say that my religious discussions have always been with learned individuals of different faiths, but even so, when I have come across a zealot I usually just hear them out and take an approach of if they are this excited and gung-ho on their religious experience, maybe I should just hear them out because who am I to decide they didn’t really have a religious experience that they are so excited about and want to share. Have I experienced a zealot being clueless towards others’ experiences? Yeah, I guess I have. But, I’ve also experienced atheists and agnostics and people of all belief systems sometimes doing that. I can’t say it’s tied to one being religious or not, though. Although I can cite some hypocrisy if a religion they are part of clearly says do not be that way to another and they are oblivious to it. But, I also separate out individual behavior from group behavior as people act different in a mob mentality as the classic book Lord of the Flies so clearly shows. But, that is a human phenomenon of mob mentality not necessarily every gathered group or organization, whether it be religious or secular.
Good sharing ideas/perspectives!
Jeff
Thank you Jerry, Tobin and Jeff for your interesting and inciteful observations on this topic. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. My thinking is very similar to Jeff’s on the topic of science and religion. I cannot add much to what as been said already, except to speak to my own experience and upbringing. I was raised in church starting in 5th grade. Prior to that my parents were caught up in the business world; always trying to get ahead and keeping up with the “Jones” as the saying goes. It felt a little like living on a hamster wheel always trying to move up in corporate America. It was every man or woman for themselves. My Dad was successful and we were able to buy bigger houses and nicer cars and clothes as his career progressed. But eventually his business success began to impact his health. He ended up with painful stomach ulcers. One day his perspective on what’s important in life began to change when he met a coworker who was a Christian. They began having long conversations that lasted for months about science and religion. My Dad was a science “geek”and remained so throughout his life. Eventually these conversations led him to check out what “church” was all about and we as a family became part of a church community. My reason for bring up this personal history is to say that I saw a huge shift in my Dad’s thinking once he chose to let go of his own ego and need for success, to live a more examined and contemplative life. He did remain in the corporate world but had a very different perspective about climbing the ladder of success, no longer feeling the need to step over others just to get ahead. One of the valuable lessons I learned as I watched his gradual transformation was the letting go of ego, (of course we don’t ever lose that completely) and learning to genuinely care about others. As we became part of a religious community we were taught the “golden rule” which paraphrased says, “We should care about the welfare of others as much as we care about our own welfare.” Community, cooperation, coordination and learning to care about others (whether they agree with me or not) instead of making everything about me was a lesson that I still find meaningful today.
Christine – Thank you for your story. As much as I am a virulent anti-religious person, it is heartwarming to hear how the “good” teachings from religion can have profound, meaningful, and positive impacts on people. My issues usually stem from either the hypocrisy I see in many religious sects or the cherry picking of verses from the Bible to justify untoward and nefarious behavior. We see it all the time and that is what I find abhorrent. My second cousin was a Methodist minister and I’m not sure if I’ve ever met a gentler, kinder person than Bob. His heart was truly that of someone who embraced the better tenets of religious teachings. Anyway, thanks again.
A story worth telling and hearing. The philosophy of American business and of capitalism is central state materialism, a ruthless and anti-communal view and attitude toward reality. It becomes self fulfilling. We create a world according to our notion of what reality must be like. But can we live in the world which we have created? You’ve shown that there is a better, more humanizing story than the get-ahead-at-any-cost story of success as understood by many of our fellow Americans.
Jerry and Tobin,
Thank you for your responses to my personal story. I appreciate you taking time to read it. Tobin I do understand where you are coming from, and I know many of your criticisms have merit. I’m thankful for the positive experience my family and I had being part of a church. I know not everyone has had positive interactions with religion, as I’ve heard from many people, including many in the Philosophy group. Regardless of our differing points of view I think there are a lot of people who are seeking ways to cooperate and coordinate efforts to address the global problems we face in today’s world.