Article 7:
The Emerging Human Person
by Wendell Krossa
(From the series "Creating A Horizontal
God", Copyright, W. Krossa)
Introduction / The Centrality of the Human Self or Person / The Human Self as the Standard for all Human Organizing / Some Human Criteria / The Basic Nature of the Human Self / Body, Soul, and Spirit / What the Self is Not / Human Loyalty
The emergence of modern human consciousness has been the most powerful force for good in the history of the world. This consciousness has inspired movements for freedom and equality that have produced immense improvement in human existence and the progress of the human race. But tragically, human consciousness has been a force that has faced constant struggle to fully express itself. This is due to the fact that it has emerged into an animal world that constantly tries to bury it.
In the previous section I noted the process through which animal domination and relating was embedded in emerging human civilization. That vertical animal relating eventually became entrenched in early human institutions and human social orders in an arrangement of relationships known as formal or institutional hierarchy. This hierarchical arrangement eventually became the dominant form of relating in all human societies and institutions. That has been a great historical tragedy.
The orientation of human relationships into a stratified hierarchy reflects the perverse human drive for prestige and power over others. Albert Nolan makes some insightful comments on the value of prestige in the society Jesus grew up in, comments that are highly applicable to our contemporary situation. He says, "The dominant value was prestige... The society was so structured that everyone had a place on the social ladder... Status and prestige were based on ancestry, wealth, authority, education and virtue. They were signified and maintained by the way you dressed and were addressed, by whom you entertained socially and who invited you to their table and by where you were placed at a banquet or where you sat in the synagogue... Rights and privileges were apportioned according to one's rank and the people who had no status at all in the society: lunatics, neurotics, the blind, the lame, the deaf, the maimed and minors, were totally excluded... Jesus roundly contradicted all this. He saw it as one of the fundamental structures of evil in the world and he dared to hope for a society in which such distinctions would have no meaning... In fact, anyone who is concerned about his prestige or 'greatness' is out of tune with the values of the kingdom as envisaged by Jesus... (anyone wanting to enter the kingdom of God must) give up all concern about any kind of status and prestige just as one must give up all concern about money and possessions. And just as one must be willing to sell all one's possessions, so one must be willing to take the last place in society... one must be willing to be everybody's servant" (Jesus Before Christianity, p.54-58).
Nolan argues that what Jesus valued was humanity not status and prestige. When Jesus promised that those who humble themselves will be exalted he was not promising future prestige and power but rather "It is the promise that they will no longer be treated as inferior but will receive full recognition as human beings... To achieve this, a total and radical restructuring of society would be required" (Ibid).
I also looked previously at the inner development of behavior control in human mentality. I noted that aggressive animal instinct, which previously controlled animal behavior, evolved into patriarchal control of human behavior and then eventually evolved toward control by the voices of gods as god consciousness emerged during early domestication. Tracing such development is the field of evolutionary biology.
Direct control by gods eventually shifted to law control of behavior in the hierarchies of domesticated humans. Law replaced the voice of silent, absent gods. But no matter which form of social control has succeeded animal instinct, they have all retained the same prominent feature of animal relating and existence- the tight vertical control of behavior.
I also noted that one of the central features of animal mentality and relating is that there is no space or pause between the controlling mechanism (instinct) and responsive action. There is no pause in animal mentality for reflection, questioning of authority, or free choice to respond. It is a mentality of strict and tight control. This primary feature of animal mentality had continued in the bicameral mentality at the time of human domestication.
It was this newer but still very animal-like mentality that shaped the institutional arrangements of human relating of newly emerging civilizations. Bicameral mentality led early settling humans to create vertically oriented arrangements of tight control for their relations with each other. Those early institutions were created and shaped to suit the controlled mentality and controlled relationships of animal reality.
Along with the entrenchment of vertical animal relating in formal hierarchies, there was also the later emergence of modern human consciousness in that same hierarchical context. That new consciousness emerged in the form of a break in the tight instinct/human behavior relationship and in the later god/man relationship, "the old tyranny" (1). An interior mind space opened up between the dominating voices of the gods and responsive human behavior.
As I noted earlier, the break with animal control was at first a reflection and a questioning of the commanding voices of the gods. It was a pause or a space which opened up between the command and immediate obedient response. Eventually, this space or hesitancy evolved into further introspection and ultimately choice and self-determination in response and action. That was the earliest emergence of a truly human consciousness and humanity. It grew to become a process of taking personal responsibility for one's own behavior, life, and destiny. This personal control and responsibility is now essential to all truly human relating and development.
That space or pause was also humanity's first taste of freedom from animal-like control. It was the first break in vertical animal-like relating and the first break in controlled existence in all of world history. That break was the first glimmer of freedom in the era long history of dominating animal life on earth.
The opening space which allowed the first emergence of true human freedom formed the basis for the emerging human self. Freedom from control formed the very ground from which emerging humanity eventually grew and developed. Brinsmead was therefore correct in stating that "freedom is the indispensable condition for being truly human" (2). Freedom was the very basis out of which the human self emerged and developed and freedom from control was also the essence of that emerging humanity or personhood.
If there is a central feature that defines the human self more than any other, it would be this feature of freedom from control. The human self is an entity that should never be controlled but should exist in a freedom which allows the self to exercise personal control or responsibility in unique and diverse ways.
The human self emerged as something which has made a complete break with animal domination and as something which is moving in an entirely new and different direction from animal reality. Being humane therefore has absolutely nothing to do with vertical relating and control. This point can not be stressed too strongly.
Modern freedom originated in this break with the commanding voices of the gods. Human freedom, in relation to its origin, consists of and can be defined by this same pause to question controlling authority, to reflect, and to exercise free choice over one's behavior. Freedom evolves further to become full responsible control over one's own decisions and life. Such freedom is essential for true human existence and the full development of the human self.
The Centrality of the Human Self or Person
(Note: Self is used as a synonymous term for human person or human being)
There should be far more research and focus on the human self, its basic nature or features, and the essential conditions for its proper development. The self, after all, "involves our ultimate destiny, our values" (3) and our very existence as humans.
It has been argued that all reality exists for the human self and that all sense of existence depends on the human self. Physicists are now suggesting that the universe itself exists only because it is observed by the human self. In one sense it does not exist aside from its perception by the conscious human mind.
Another suggestion holds that everything in the universe appears to be perfectly designed and arranged to support human life and hence the human self. The human self is therefore central to all life and reality.
The human self, with its essential feeling, thought, and choice regarding behavior, is central to the future existence of humanity. In knowing the self and its essential requirements for development, we can understand better the reason why humanity emerged and where it is heading. Though it may seem to be a worn out question or issue, the human self does provide critical information on the reason and purpose of human existence.
It is extremely important, then, that we correctly understand the nature of the human self. Current economic, biological, and other ideologies would have us believe that the human self is a self-interested, dominating entity oriented to competitive achievement like that of all species in animal reality. If this were true, then people would be acting correctly to give all of their effort to join and to succeed in the mad lemming-like rush to gain more resources and opportunities than others. The current worldwide frenzy of free enterprise consumerism and the struggle to gain as much for oneself as possible is the expression of intensely self-interested human selves.
While this grasping for material dominance and security is the expression of the central contemporary view of the human self, it is a violation of truly humane consciousness and of all that it means to be human. True humanity has emerged as something which is not self-interested but is instead oriented to community and to becoming human in cooperative community. Being human means sharing as an equal with all other humans. The self-interest evident in contemporary human existence is more an expression of residual animal drives emanating from a residual animal brain that is not essential to our emerging humanity.
The Human Self as the Standard for all Human Organizing
If the human self exists to become a more humane entity, then that essential nature and purpose of the self should inform all thought, feeling, and behavior in human societies. It should inform the creation and structuring of human social orders, relationships, processes, and institutions. I am arguing that the human self and its essential nature must influence the structuring of all life toward being a more truly humane existence.
This study assumes that the basic trend of the evolution of life is moving toward a truly humane existence (4). History, then, is the story of the emergence and development of humanity. History is the process of life moving in the direction of becoming fully and truly human. This is the basic trend of life in the universe.
I would also suggest that the emergence of humanity is the primary expression of God in creation for all true humanity originates with God. Humane consciousness is the image of God in humanity. That humane consciousness finds expression in love, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and other expressions of humane response.
The emergence of human consciousness in the break with our animal past was the starting point of that journey toward a more humane reality. It was the initial emergence of a space for a developing human self which then began a journey or process of evolving toward full human personhood or humanity (5). As Zwemer has stated, "man is an animal, but is in the process of becoming human and occupying a truly human world" (6). This is an excellent capsule summary of the direction of history as the emergence of humanity out of animal reality.
This process of becoming truly and fully human is, then, the central reason for and meaning of human existence. It involves movement toward a more egalitarian existence (7). Such egalitarian existence is completely incompatible with vertically oriented animal existence. The emerging human self now demands horizontally oriented relationships in order to develop as truly human.
To understand better the type of existence and relationships suited to our humanity, this chapter is arguing for the importance of knowing the human self. The human self is important to understand because it must be the fundamental reality to which social processes and structures are oriented. If the human self has indispensable requirements for its proper development and growth, then human social processes and structures are obligated at a bare minimum to meet these basic requirements in order to encourage human development. If the purpose of life is to become fully human, then surely our societies ought to be oriented to this purpose.
If, on the other hand, social structures and processes do not operate to encourage egalitarian forms of relating, then by default they are operating to undermine human existence and relating. This calls into judgment all vertically oriented relationships and structures because sufficient research now exists to support the argument that whenever control, coercion, or power enters any relationship (which is the case in most vertical relationships), then that relationship will inevitably be destroyed in terms of its truly human element (9). In light of this research it is questionable how many social institutions currently operate to meet the basic requirements of the human self for freedom and equality.
Hierarchically oriented organizations have never been able to properly promote human relating and growth because the control that is inherent to such systems permits little space for the reflection, evaluation, and responsible freedom of choice that is the essential nature of emerging human consciousness. Tragically, people continue to struggle within these structures designed for controlled existence. Such institutional arrangements are simply not suitable for truly human development and relating. The human self has emerged as an entirely new reality demanding freedom from all control and hierarchical organizations simply can not provide the horizontally oriented forms of relating that are so essential for healthy human growth and development.
Consequently, the coexistence of emerging human consciousness in archaic structures of domination has produced much confusion, misery, alienation, and conflict. It has caused immense damage to human well being and seriously retarded human development. In the words of Zwemer "it has destroyed true human existence" (8).
I also want to emphasize that the human person or self emerges and develops in freedom. Freedom becomes the supporting environment for true human growth and progress. It is the space in which the separate bodily sensations of ancient human beings were able to unify and then allow the human person to emerge in its modern human form as a responsible, self-determining entity. This freedom from control became the essence of the emerging human self. It shapes, inspires, and encourages the development of the human person.
This chapter and the next will attempt to set forth some of the basic features of the human self. These features help to define the basic requirements for human relating and existence. They are features essential for human development and progress.
These basic human criteria have been brilliantly expressed in historical persons such as Jesus. And some have argued that in Jesus we find an example of humanity that reveals to us what the humanity of God is like. In Jesus we have an example of what it means to be truly and fully human. Unfortunately, over ensuing millennia that humanity was buried by the accreting ideology and structuring of the Christian religion.
Michael Morwood has stated that "The whole point of Jesus' life is that a human person like us so lived life that other people believed they saw the divine operating in him... in the life of this man, we believe we discern insights into what God is like... (and) we are led to believe that in our own human experience of life we can discern the divine operating in us" (Tomorrow's Catholic, p.87).
The fact that Jesus gave us a brilliant example of true humanity, and therefore reflected the truly human God, is a useful area to explore. Jesus has been so closely identified with controlling institutional religion and all the distorting gobbledygook surrounding religion that many people have come to view him with great skepticism as the sponsor of the often intolerant and sometimes even brutal Christian religion. However, if we accept Ellul's argument that the real historical Jesus has nothing to do with institutional Christianity and is, in fact, on all points opposed to Christianity and religion, then we may find a way around this sticking point. In reality, the historical Jesus was a shocking contradiction to all that institutional Christianity now stands for.
In any event, he is a useful example to explore in terms of information on the nature of human relating and existence. It is especially useful for people raised in cultures with worldviews grounded in a Christian viewpoint of life and for that reason we will take a closer look at it later.
The Basic Nature of the Human Self
Just before looking at the basic features that define the human self or person, I will briefly note some material from Jaynes on the initial emergence of the self. Jaynes finds in ancient Greek literature (e.g. the Iliad) a variety of words describing bodily sensations which will later unify or coalesce to form human consciousness and eventually the modern human self (10). In Greek literature from a very early period, these words referred to functions or sensations in the bodies of bicameral people. These functions and their rough translations are as follows:
Thumos- internal sensations in response to external crises.
Phrenes- lungs or breathing responses to environmental stimulation.
Kradie- cardiac (heart), the beating of the heart in response to external stimuli.
Etor- sensations in stomach or bowels in response to external stimuli.
Noos- perception, to see.
Psyche- the property of breathing.
These bodily sensations or properties functioned, according to Jaynes, to control human actions during the transition from the bicameral mind to the human consciousness which would follow (11). The meaning of the terms changes over time until eventually they "join together in what we would call the subjective conscious mind" (12). According to Jaynes, these separate sensations or feelings lose their original discreteness or separateness and eventually join together to form the consciousness which would become the basis of the emerging human self or human person.
It is interesting to note that many of these pre-consciousness properties are emotions or feelings.
From these elements which form the base of the emerging self, it is clear that emotions and not just rationality form a large part of what it means to be human. This is interesting to note because modern organizational structures are often created to suit purely rational beings who are expected to live a rationally ordered existence, an existence ordered according to strict systems of law. Irrationality or non-rationality, which are pejorative terms for human emotion or response, are viewed as anomalies to be suppressed or even eliminated from organizational life as inefficient.
Karen Armstrong has noted in this regard that the ancient Greeks first introduced the new and passionate emphasis on logic and reason. They believed, for instance, that even God could be discovered by reason (13). This rational approach to perceiving all reality eventually moved into Western thinking and led to a growing dismissal of feeling, intuition, and imagination as lacking rational credibility. It came to be believed in Western culture that all genuine truth or reality could only be known through rational hypothesis which must be logically demonstrated and based on observation through the use of the five senses (14).
This view reached its epitome in modern science where sense faculties were believed to be the only credible means of perceiving any reality or truth, including God. It is no wonder that in the West, atheism has been the common outcome of such rationality. We need to remember that God is beyond perception by the five materially oriented senses. God is not an objective reality to be discovered and proven by logical reasoning and empirical testing (15).
A rational approach to spirituality (and to all reality) leads to truncated and underdeveloped human persons whose essential emotional, intuitional, and imaginative faculties are not being valued, recognized, and properly used.
As Armstrong says, we must go beyond senses to perceive the mystery that is God (16). God is discovered through intuition and imagination and is represented by symbol, art, and music. Too long the emotional element of human understanding has been devalued as lacking credibility in the pursuit of truth. And perhaps the scientific reaction to emotional faculties has been due in part to the extremism of irrational emotionalism that is often found in religious practice. But such extremism must not keep us from learning to trust feelings, intuition, insight, and imagination as essential in the perception of God and all reality.
You can never fully understand life by breaking in down into discrete units which are then measured and observed by so-called rational persons using an approach that is oriented to quantification in the material realm. The rational approach has been immensely useful for understanding the more superficial elements of material reality but even then it has shortcomings in regard to a proper appreciation of the whole of material reality.
To fully understand life, we need to sometimes just stand in nature and not only observe and measure but also smell, listen, and feel. That awesome feeling of being alive and appreciating life at such times, is an understanding that no amount of measuring will ever bring. And that sense of appreciation of life and nature is every bit as credible in understanding life as all the measuring and quantifying of science.
More importantly, that individual emotional appreciation of life and nature is something freely available to every human being irregardless of educational background.
Moreso, in relation to knowing God and the spiritual which is beyond the material realm and therefore beyond sense perception, we need to move beyond a limiting rational, logical approach and realize that the highest knowledge of God is discovered by imagination, feeling, and intuition (17). These essential features of the human self are central to perceiving all of reality and truth, especially those elements of reality that lay beyond the five senses.
And as the self appears to science to exist beyond rational analysis and so far to be beyond empirical observation and discovery (much like the mystery that is God), maybe the psychoanalyst Jung was right in stating that the self is a God image.
The basic properties or sensations of the human body that unified to form the human self, show that the self is essentially emotional, not just rational.
It is also important to note the emotional element of the human self in relation to the central drives in the evolution of life. Human consciousness encompasses pleasure, pain, hope, love, insight, doubt, and grief among other feelings. Scientists working in the area of consciousness research argue that there appears to be no apparent function for such subjective experience in terms of basic evolutionary drives and this intensifies the mystery surrounding the emergence of human consciousness (18).
And human consciousness does not fit well with theories of the selfish gene which view the central drives of life as oriented to survival of the best adapted life form. Human feeling, in fact, appears to work against basic evolutionary drives such as tge drive to dominate others in order to ensure the continued existence of one's self or one's own clan. Human feelings inspire compassion and empathy for others. This then leads to cooperation and sharing, instead of competitive domination and destruction of the other- the opponent or competitor.
Human consciousness and feelings lead to the emergence and development of humanity as something entirely different from animal reality and existence. Consequently, leading researchers on consciousness can no longer accept a purely material view of the human mind, which attempts to explain consciousness as merely arising from electrochemical activity in the brain (simply the firing of neurons). There is something 'extra' about human consciousness that can not be explained simply in terms of physical activity in the brain (19). This fact, say the consciousness researchers, presents the possibility that divinity may be involved in the emergence of consciousness (20).
Humanity is something distinct from and more than just animal. Rather than just being an advanced form of animal life, humanity has emerged as something qualitatively different and heading in an entirely new direction from animal reality. Human beings are moving toward love, peace, inclusion, cooperation, and equality. Human emotion is inspiring humanity toward this new direction of freedom from animal drives and domination.
It ought to be questioned whether the old religious categories of body and soul or spirit can still serve to describe accurately the makeup of human persons. The perception of people as possessing separatable bodies and souls apparently emerged with the Greek philosophers and was later adopted by religions like Christianity.
But the human self- body and mind- may be a more useful term to describe the reality of human beings. The human self, the human person, or the human being are also synonymous inclusive terms that describe the total human person.
Jack Zwemer has noted some of the features that define the basic nature of the self (21). Very little descriptive material on the human self is available and it will be helpful to interact with this material. Zwemer first makes the following points on what the self is not.
1. He states that the self is not animal in any way. The human self is not predatory and does not have anything animal in its constituent elements (22). People like B. F. Skinner argued that the human self was a composite of animal responses or reflexes. But, according to Zwemer, new information provides evidence that the self is not in any manner animal (23). In fact, it could be argued that the human self is something quite opposite to animal mentality and being.
I noted above that the human self was grounded in a consciousness or mentality which was a complete break with predatory, dominating animal instinct and behavior. The self consists of a consciousness that arises from a space which broke the ancient command/obey relationship of animal relating and behavior. The human self is an entity born in and developing within freedom from control which is completely foreign to animal existence with its competitive domination.
That ancient break with animal mentality and relating set the human self moving in an entirely different direction from controlling animal existence. It set humanity moving away from vertical relating and domination toward the horizontal relating of free equals. This new form of relating is oriented to personal responsibility. In a truly human existence, control of choice and behavior must never originate from outside of the self because external control effectively destroys the essential function of the human self as a personally responsible entity.
That ancient break with animal relating led to an entirely and radically new mentality in humanity. It led to a new orientation of humanity toward more egalitarian relationships. The human self or person became a horizontally oriented and egalitarian reality, while animal creatures remained vertically oriented and dominating realities.
Zwemer says that truly human beings do not seek to possess, dominate, or control other beings. The human self is, instead, moving away from animal existence toward fully human existence. The self, according to Zwemer, demands a truly egalitarian existence; it is committed to human equality in every way (24).
Others, such as Levin, argue that the self is part animal as well as human. As a consequence of this mixture, the self, says Levin, is conflictual (25). The self is emerging out of a human brain, of which the substrate is still a very animal brain. Conflicting drives and desires emanate from these different parts of the brain producing conflict within the human person.
But despite the fact that humanity is emerging within animal reality and is still influenced by residual animal drives, there is nothing essentially animal in emerging human consciousness. That which appears to be animal is due to the residual drives that emanate from the ancient animal brain we all still possess. But that residual animalness is not an essential part of our emerging humanity. Much confusion occurs around the essential nature of humanity and human behavior because this distinction is not made clear.
2. Zwemer's second point argues that the self is not institutional (26). It is not defined by some institution or structure to which the person belongs. Zwemer's second point is derived from Louis Zurcher's work on the mutable self (27).
Zurcher had stated that that institutional selves define themselves in terms of an organization or occupational group that they belong to. An institutional self would say "I am a soldier" or "I am a businessman" or "I am a Muslim" or "I am a Christian". This is a view of the self as an object which finds its identity in some social structure, ideology, movement, or organization (28).
A person with the view of the self as object will tend toward "rigid adherence to conventional values; a submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the in group, tendency to look for and punish people who violate conventional values, opposition to the subjective, imaginative or tender minded; tendency to think in rigid categories, preoccupation with dominance/submission, strong/weak, leader/follower categories"(29).
Other people experience dissatisfaction with finding their identity in some social structure and with being rigid selves as objects. These people tend to distance themselves from social structures or hierarchies and evolve toward selves as process. This entails a willingness to accept the uncertainty that comes with freedom from dominating hierarchical structures (30).
The shift from self as object to self as process is a personal transformation which in some ways reflects the historical shift from bicameral domination to the freedom of evolving human personhood. The self which distances itself from social structures to become a self as process, this move of the self into freedom is similar to the early historical break from hierarchical control that led to emerging human consciousness. It is a shift from controlled existence to the freedom of evolving human life. This move to self as process is similar to the early creation of the space to reflect, question, and the freedom to personally control choice of action which formed the basis of modern human consciousness.
Unfortunately, the shift to freedom is often resisted by an animal substrate brain that encourages a retreat to security in a controlled hierarchical existence. The animal substrate of the brain still emotes ancient drives to control and to be controlled. Jaynes argues that these ancient desires for archaic authority can be traced to remnants of the bicameral mind still active in the modern human brain (31). In reality, the drives that influence people toward control in vertical relationships are mediated by the bicameral remnants in the brain as well as the animal substrate of the brain.
The shift from self as object to self as process produces what Zurcher calls the 'mutable self' (32). It involves a significant shift from an orientation toward stability of self (self as object focused on institution) to an orientation toward change (self as process).
Daniel Boorstin writes about the French philosopher Henri Bergson who shared a view of the human self similar to Zurcher's view. He says that Bergson was the prophet and spokesman of the unpredictable, dynamic human spirit. He rejected mechanistic dogmas and the automatic (predetermined) forces of history and gave a new voice to man's independence. (In Bergson's view) Change was the core of experience. 'For an ego which does not change does not endure'. And our enduring is what makes freedom possible" (33).
Shifting to a self which is no longer fixed as object but which is in the process of adaptive change can be frightening. It means responsibly accepting the full freedom to live in uncertainty. As noted above, this personal change from a fixed self to a mutable self reflects the larger historical crisis of emerging consciousness. With emerging consciousness humans faced the choice of moving out from under the security of their previously controlled existence. It led to freedom, but that freedom brought new and frightening change and uncertainty. Many bicameral humans refused the new freedom and chose to return, instead, to the supposed security of a commanded existence in the old hierarchies. They preferred the supposed security of structures of control like many frightened people still do today.
Each person faces this same choice- to remain as a fixed self, finding security and identity in some institution (whether ethnic, religious, national, occupational, or other) or choosing the freedom to be fully human. This freedom will involve uncertainty, chance, change, and the responsibility for choices and their consequences. It will involve movement into a more open and dynamic future. It will mean leaving the false security of ideology or institution to fully join the human race.
Fortunately, our minds have now evolved the capability to fully enter freedom and to become fully human. Zurcher notes that the evolution of the cerebral cortex has led to the ability to "formulate abstractions" (34). We can now reflect on ourselves and our situations. We can separate ourselves from and hold structures at a distance.
This ability to separate ourselves from controlling structures is similar to the type of space Jaynes referred to which developed in bicameral humans and which allowed those early humans to step back from controlling hierarchies and provided room for the development of early consciousness (35). That space enabled early humans to reflect upon and to question the old dominating authorities.
This ability to effect a dichotomy, to abstract ourselves away from social structures, can also lead to alienation. But while it can produce alienation, it also, says Zurcher, provides us with an opportunity to influence elements in our environment (36). We are no longer subject to and controlled by our environment and by social structures. We can separate ourselves from controlling structures and then act on them to change them, to improve them.
Work such as Zurcher's on the mutable self or the self as process shows us that the human self is so much more than a fixed or rigid entity oriented to an institutional framework. The human self is a free person in process. Humans are free beings moving into an open future of freedom. We are not yet fully human, but we are fully engaged in the process of becoming fully human. Most importantly, we are free from the enslaving constraints of institutional and social categories whether ethnic, gender, state, political, occupational, or religious.
Joseph Campbell has similarly argued that becoming selves in process should be a society wide ideal. He says, "Our ideal for a society... is not that it should be a perfectly static organization, founded in the age of the ancestors and to remain unchanging through all time. It is rather of a process moving toward a fulfillment of as yet unrealized possibilities; and in this living process each is to be an initiating yet cooperating center. We have, consequently, the comparatively complex problem in educating our young, of training them not simply to assume uncritically the patterns of the past, but to recognize and cultivate their own creative possibilities, not to remain on some proven level of earlier biology and sociology, but to represent a movement of the species forward" (Myths To Live By, p.47-48).
Becoming selves in process also means that we are not defined or enslaved in any way by our pasts. We are no longer constrained by what may we have been or done. We are now defined only by our future and the unlimited potential that we have to become free and truly human in a wide open future. Becoming selves in process means there is unlimited potential for growth as true human persons.
This is an incredibly liberating point to reflect on.
Levin also states that the self is flow or process. It is flowing, free, and changing. He says that the self is developmental, evolutionary, and emergent. The self is something which is not oriented to the past but rather is oriented to the creative advance of the universe. "It is essentially pulled by the future, more than propelled by the past or the biological" (37). This is why emotions like hope are such powerful influences in human thinking because they orient humans to the future and the unlimited possibility of change for the better.
Much contemporary institutional life is not conducive to the development and expression of true human selves in process. Modern organizations and structures demand submission to institutional culture and law in a manner that often constrains and destroys the free growth of diverse humanity. Contemporary institutions tend to define and govern people in the interests of efficiency and little else. These institutions have a notorious tendency to produce rigidly bureaucratic attitudes, bureaucratic behavior, and even bureaucratic personalities.
Bureaucracy then tends to reinforce a culture where people focus on the structure and its operating goals instead of humanity and human values. Admittedly, a highly organized structure can give a sense of security from the chance and randomness of life, but it also fosters a rigidity in response and behavioral patterns that can crush the creativity, spontaneity, and diversity of human life. Institutional life with its orientation toward rigid systems of law is not conducive to the development of life as free flowing process.
Zurcher's work also raises serious question about the effort of nations and institutions to demand loyalty from their members. The demand for loyalty too often encourages members to find their identity in the organization or state. This has led to people finding themselves identified in opposition to other human beings in some other state or institution who are viewed as enemies.
It is a violation of the essential nature of the human self to demand that it be loyal to some institution or that it find its identity in an institution.
It is also important to point out the danger of loyalty to ideologies or systems of thought. Such loyalty often forces people to think only within the boundaries of their particular ideology and no ideology exists which can encompass all that life means now or is becoming.
We need to preserve at all times the freedom to think in entirely new ways as life leads us in new directions. We need to maintain the freedom to suddenly and radically change as the need arises. Such change is not a sign of weakness but may instead be a sign of courage, advance, and humane response. You sometimes hear people boast that they have never changed their beliefs. These people view change as a sign of having been wrong and an admission of weakness and failure. But in reality it may show great flexibility and willingness to progress as new information comes to light. It may be the sign of a true human in process.
The ongoing effort of nation state leadership to encourage the loyalty of their citizens to states and their institutions also undermines the ability of people to maintain inclusiveness toward all other people. National loyalty creates walls between humans and fosters an 'us versus them' mindset in people. It has led to millions of people wasting their lives in wars to protect the interests of their states (which represent often merely elite interests) against other state's interests.
In this regard, I am reminded of the comment by Charlie Chaplin. It has been said that he considered patriotism, "The greatest insanity that the world has ever suffered" (Ann Douglas, 1998. "Charlie Chaplin", in Time magazine, June 8).
Albert Nolan says regarding group loyalty "For all our Western individualism and for all our amazement at the lengths to which others take this group solidarity, we still retain, consciously or unconsciously, a tremendous amount of group loyalty and group prejudice. It varies from person to person but there are still plenty of people in the Western world who base their identity upon the loyalties and prejudices of race, nationality, language, culture, class, ancestry, family, generation, political party, and religious denomination. Love and loyalty are just as exclusive as they ever were..." (Jesus Before Christianity, p.60).
Nolan says Jesus taught that the difference between the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God was that "Satan's kingdom was based upon the exclusive and selfish solidarity of groups whereas God's kingdom was based upon the all-inclusive solidarity of the human race...'you have heard it said: you must love you neighbor, but hate your enemy. But I say unto you: love your enemies'... Jesus wished to include all men in this solidarity of love... Jesus is appealing for an experience of solidarity with mankind, an experience that is non-exclusive, an experience that is not dependent on reciprocity because it includes even those who hate you, persecute you or treat you badly... a loving solidarity which would exclude nobody at all... This solidarity with mankind must take precedence over every other kind of love and every other kind of solidarity (even the family)... a new universal solidarity must supersede all the old group solidarities" (Ibid, p.61-63).
God would have us be loyal to all people equally and to all life, with no special focus on some exclusive subgroup of that larger human family.
The religious demand for devotion to a vertical God also violates the essential egalitarian nature of the human self. The effort to demand such loyalty is an effort to push the self back toward vertical relating and existence. Submission to the will of such a God has always led to an inhuman and destructive existence. It only encourages the expression of base animal drives to compete and dominate.
3. The self is not autonomous. It does not exist by itself, according to Zwemer (38). The human self only exists as fully human in relationship with others, to the universe, and to God. The human self or person is a social or community oriented creature. As someone stated, life is a web of complex interdependencies (39). Humans are tightly integrated within those interdependencies.
Human selves find their identity as human in their interaction with other human selves. As people struggle to become more humane, they inspire each other by example in mutually influencing relationships.
Works Cited
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p.204.
Ø Brinsmead, Robert. 1989. "Dare to Blaspheme and Dare to be Free" in Quest, Essay 1, p. 3.
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1991. "The Nature of the Human Self" in Quest, No. 12, p.1.
Ø Ibid, 1994. "Mankind Between Two Worlds" in Forum, No. 31, p.2.
Ø Ibid, 1994. " The New World Order" in Forum, No. 33, p.2.
Ø Ibid, 1994. "Mankind Between Two Worlds" in Forum, No. 31, p.2.
Ø Ibid, 1994. "The New World Order" in Forum, No. 33, p. 2.
Ø Ibid, p.4.
Ø Kipnis, David. 1976. The Powerholders.
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p.261.
Ø Ibid, p.259.
Ø Ibid, p.260.
Ø Armstrong, Karen. 1993. A History Of God, p. 34, 68.
Ø Ibid, p. 118.
Ø Ibid, p. 296.
Ø Ibid, p. 339, 350.
Ø Ibid, p.196.
Ø Wright, Robert. 1996. "Can Machines Think?" in Time, March 25, Vol. 147, No. 13.
Ø Ibid.
Ø Ibid.
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1991. "The Nature of the Human Self" in Quest, No. 12.
Ø Ibid, p.4.
Ø Ibid, p.4.
Ø Ibid, p.4.
Ø Levin, Jerome. 1992. Theories of the Self, p.4.
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1991. "The Nature of the Human Self" in Quest, No. 12, p.4.
Ø Zurcher, Louis. 1977. The Mutable Self: A Self-Concept for Social Change.
Ø Ibid, p.26.
Ø Ibid, p.227.
Ø Ibid, p.27.
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p.317.
Ø Zurcher, Louis. 1977. The Mutable Self: A Self-Concept for Social Change, p.203.
Ø Boorstin, Daniel. "The Asking Animal" in Time, Special Issue, Winter 1997-1998, p.20-21.
Ø Zurcher. 1977. p.203.
Ø Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, P.209.
Ø Zurcher, Louis. 1977. The Mutable Self: A Self-Concept for Social Change, p.27.
Ø Levin, Jerome. 1992. Theories of the Self, p.121.
Ø Zwemer, Jack. 1991. "The Nature of the Human Self" in Quest, No. 12, p.4.
Ø Dobson, Andrew. 1997. "Why We Need the Fig Wasp" in Time Special Issue, November, p.56.
From the series 'Taking The
Vertical Out Of God'
copyrighted material.
