Today’s Post

Last week we began to take a look at what first seems to be a new ‘dualism’, which, when set against all the traditional dualisms we have examined (spirit/matter, this life/the next, sin/grace, damnation/salvation) first appears as just one more.  As we saw, the hard edges of such dualisms begin to crumble into a ‘spectrum of the real’ when we hold up the universal evolution perspectives of Teilhard, Rohr and others.  As we saw with Jonathan Sacks, such dualisms simply represent an unbalanced approach to reality in which one side of the brain dominates our thoughts by prioritizing, for instance, such things as empiricism over intuition or intuition over facts.  From Sacks’ perspective, such dualisms simply represent the difficulty of “thinking with the whole brain”, and begin to resolve themselves as we become more adept, for example, at looking at both sides of an issue.

Is this new negativity, this pushback against reasoned discourse which reveals itself in such deep and  coarse sociological divisions as can be seen in today’s politics and social media, just one more ‘dualism’ which can be resolved by applying Teilhard’s evolutive hermeneutic?  Or is it quite different, and indicative of a deeper, more insidious and therefore stronger threat to our continued evolution?

This week we will peer more deeply into this modern phenomenon.

The Persistence of Indignation

There’s obviously nothing new about ‘indignation’.  Indignation is simply the emotion we attach to disapproval of the actions of others.  It is well described in our earliest forms of literature, as is the different actions and sensations that it incites in us.

We have addressed in this blog the many ways that our ‘triune’ brain affects our perceptions and provide stimuli to our actions, but to summarize:

The ‘reptilian’ brain resides in the brain stem, and was the first brain to be formed in the animal family.  It controls the most basic animal functions, such as breathing (even when we’re unconscious).  It is also responsible for ‘fight or flight’ stimuli, letting us know when we’re hungry, and as an impetus for reproduction.  In its ‘fight or flight’ stimuli it warns of danger to insure our safety.  As such, it is the root of many of our ‘negative’ emotions, such as fear and anger.

The ‘limbic’ or ‘mammalian’ brain is more recent, ‘layered’ on top of the ‘reptilian’ brain, and is more responsible for emotions and sensations of pleasure that come from being socially connected.  The ‘reptilian’ brain provides the instinct to procreate, but the young are left to hatch from untended eggs and are left on their own to mature.  The ‘limbic’ brain introduces a post-natal period in which the young are nurtured until some degree of autonomy is attained, in keeping with their more complex neural systems and the resultant longer gestation periods.  Such ‘social’ instincts are not only essential to the maturation of the individual, but go on to provide (in the higher primates) the structures of society in which individuals can override the ‘individual survival’ stimuli of the reptilian brain in favor of the ‘survival’ of the family or social group.

The ‘neocortex’ brain is the most recent of the ‘brain layers’, and the most complex.  It introduces the ability to have knowledge of our awareness, and to process this knowledge independently of the stimuli produced by the lower brains.

All three ‘brains’ are capable of ‘self-medication’.   Apparently, all three levels of the brain are capable of producing such chemicals as dopamine and other messenger chemicals that are active in mediating pleasure response.   This is evolution’s way of rewarding activity which is consistent with the brain’s awareness of its surroundings and productive of activity which increases the individual’s evolutionary potential.  Our days are filled with such sensations, from the reward our brain provides when the solution of the morning crossword pops into our head to the pleasure of a close relationship.

But, like all things in the human evolutionary spectrum such a natural and necessary flow of neurological energy can work to ends less appropriate to the continuation of human evolution.

The Danger of Indignation

As we have stated, there are few subjects easier recognized than indignation.   It is commonly experienced in our increasingly fast-paced culture, which seems to require a nearly endless increase in patience and forbearance to survive with any equanimity at all.  No matter what accommodation we have achieved with our constantly changing mileu, the next day will require even more.

At the same time, we are subjected to an endless barrage of data, much of it irrelevant and difficult to sift in ‘real time’.  We are often called on to take actions the consequences of which are unknown.

One seeming effect of such a kinetic existence is an increase in the friction between persons resulting in being thrown into increasingly close proximity and requiring increasing tolerance if social balance is to be maintained.

As the social critic, David Brin, observes:

“We have entered an era of rising ideological division and a “culture war” that increasingly stymies our knack at problem-solving. Nowadays, few adversarial groups seem capable of negotiating peaceful consensus solutions to problems, especially with opponents that are perceived as even more unreasonably dogmatic than they are. This cycle is often driven by the irate stubbornness of a few vigorous leaders. After all, the indignant have both stamina and dedication, helping them take high positions in advocacy organizations, from Left to Right.”

   The resultant ‘culture war’ that Brin identifies can be clearly seen in today’s news: the ‘we vs they’ nature of immigration debates, the tendency to ‘demonize’ opponents on the left or right, and the inability to arrive at consensus on any subject, as if the middle of the road has somehow become the edge of oblivion.

The statesmanlike attributes of empathizing with opponents, accepting criticism, or negotiating practical solutions to problems, so prized by the framers of our constitution, seem to be in scant supply today.  History shows that without them, the state lurches into a one-sided approach to everything, which no matter ‘left’ or ‘right’ eventually becomes unresponsive to democratic norms and destructive of individual and collective freedom.

The rapidly changing nature of our society, with its current trend of tightening our bonds through ever more immediate connectivity, can act as a media for both improving our grasp of reality in such a way as to enhance our reaction to it, and at the same time as a media for increasing our pessimism that evolution is actually moving us forward.  What is it about this current phenomenon that makes it so risky?

 

The Next Post

This week we looked a little closer at how human ‘complexification’ seems to require human compression, and how if we fail to understand this and put it into perspective, our continued human evolution as entities able to ‘think with both sides of their brain’ seems to be at risk.

Next week we will look more closely at what seems to be going on inside our heads as we deal with the risks of indignation.