(from The Peach Pit: My side of the story. ch 38)
Some definitions first off, philosophical, metaphysical, maybe even scientific.
ontology: a particular theory about the nature of being.
ontogeny: course of development especially of an individual organism, as in: as a general rule, humans are carried nine months in a womb, birthed and are parent-dependent for about 12 to 15 years and then mature, find a place in their social web (get a job), mate and produce offspring, age-deteriorate and typically die between 70 and 90 years of age.
teleology: a doctrine (as in vitalism) that ends are immanent in nature (what we see when we look around is supposed to be that way) such as we humans are the dominant species on the planet and that means we’re supposed to be dominant and this planet was made for us.
teleonomy: the quality of apparent purposefulness of structure or function
in living organisms due to evolutionary adaptation. We have opposable thumbs to move levers and work iphones and so that means we’re supposed to build things, use cutlery when we eat and have meaningless chats for hours on communication devices. Giraffes, no. They eat leaves off very high trees.
My belief, supported by introspection, conversation, and study is that:
There is no teleology and there is no ontological purpose to life at either species or individual level. The misconception that there is has put us in a lot of trouble. It fuelled the “Manifest Destiny” expansionist doctrine of 19th C. US politicians, the Third Reich atrocities of Hitler, and the worst of religious wars of history and today. Anyone who thinks the world exists for our (human) domination and exploitation because we happen to be the dominant species here is under this circular thinking delusion. Woe is them (and us).
The introspection comes from the forced self-examination at times of crisis brought about by the actions of others or by my own wrongheadedness. I know “actions of others” implies some intention, some design, on the part of others, but I must hold to my observation that the effects of any external act — natural cyclone, interpersonal dispute or self-destructive impulse, any of those effects — are felt by me, the object of the acts and hence the assessment is mine alone.
I don’t want to get weird on you here; I’m simply noticing that the rock in the road doesn’t care about my stubbed toe, the SOB who ripped me off wasn’t interested in my responses, just my money. Also, the suicidal feelings almost overwhelming me at moments of relationship failure came as reactions from somewhere in my personal history and those reactions could be examined and perhaps changed. They did not result from some immutable law. There is no ontogeny that predicts the outcome, the purpose of my life. It’s mine to direct on a moment-by-moment basis. I don’t always like that notion. I’d like to blame the rain for getting me wet, but too bad. Now, about species.
Humberto Maturana was a candidate for a Nobel Prize in biology sometime in the late 1980s. He formulated, with one Francisco Varela, a theory he termed “autopoiesis” which held that organisms function to sustain their own existence and there is no grand designed-by-god purpose laid on them, no intended outcome to their presence in the web of life. Evolution, he said, is also a robust theory and the two are not at all in conflict. He gave a weekend lecture that I attended and I spent the time fighting to stay awake — a sure sign of struggle to comprehend new concepts — with a large group of scientists, doctors, philosophers and even some regular folk like me.
He got the name “autopoiesis’ when discussing with a friend, the Miguel Cervantes’ 15thC novel Don Quixote. The protagonist there, the aged, confused knight, Don Quixote, is deciding whether he will follow the course of “praxis”( action) or poises (reflection) in his quest to correct the evils in the world. The old don decided on praxis and took off to do battle with his imaginary enemies, some of whom he saw disguised as windmills on one notable occasion.
Maturana saw the word “poiesis” and took it on as the term he was looking for to describe living entities whose existence was purely circular, and coined the word “autopoiesis.” Creatures fill a certain niche because it works to keep their kind alive. Giraffes eat leaves from high trees because the gazelles are chewing up all the grass.
You don’t need to get all Old-Testament on us; there’s no “dominion over the beasts, etc.” for homo sapiens. We just do what works with our opposable thumbs which over many lifetimes we got better and better at using. Boomerangs and bombs are on the same trajectory.
So, what belief about life then, do I hold? Hang on to your whatzits. Here it is.
Have fun. Have fun in the broadest sense. Follow your passion and do what serves your best ideals and you’ll have all the fun you can handle, and so will everyone you meet with/live with along the way. What’s the alternative? I tried a number of them on my own path. Herewith a few of them.
Do what others tell you to do because you’ll have lots of friends. No you won’t. You’ll have lots of people who know you’re a sucker.
Go for some glamour. The team sportsman’s jacket will attract the babes. Well, it looked good, but studying for that physics exam would have been a better use of my time.
Work really hard. Stay up late and read lots and prepare lessons or work in great detail and suffer visibly. See #1 and substitute the word “administrators” for “people.” Also, no one gives a large goddam if you can quote references. Results always trump reasons.
Be reasonable. Be prepared to explain in detail why your views are unassailable and point out the logical fallacies of anyone’s opposition. It gets cold and lonely very fast, and even wrapping myself in a sense of superiority didn’t keep me warm, and it sure as hell didn’t get me laid.
Be a stoic. Don’t feel and you’ll never be hurt. Closely related to being reasonable and also a tragic misinterpretation of stoicism.
Live it up. No one else is taking this business (job, relationship, project) seriously and the beer is cheap, and time is flying. You are just here for their amusement as are they for you. “Come fill the cup” sort of thing. That one cost me a lot of years I could have spent with Beverly. It also cost me a lot of relationships that could have deepened into good friendships.
So, have fun. Fun is good and fun is what people enjoy together. Talking, sharing, doing, helping when it serves, backing off when it serves, laughing lots, eating well, — generally putting good things into my body and my personal space and trying not to piss in my own bath so to speak — this is how to have a good life.
And also see that others are having fun as well, to the extent you can do so. If that means demonstrating on the streets, writing letters, adopting orphans – all those things that will bring a smile to someone else's face because the bombs aren't dropping on them and they are fed – do that too.
And if people really are living with bombs dropping and no-anaesthetic amputations and forced starvation, do whatever you can to move the dial of their lives in the direction of fun. It sounds stupid I know, to even place those images in the same utterance, but ask any professional clown or comedian and they will tell you of the dark sources for their humour. I beleve the anthropologist who said that a laugh is just a serially-interrupted cry.
Having and making fun is what I observe in the people I admire and it’s what works for me when I relax enough to go with it. It's why Mother Theresa responded to the person who complained that she was taking the Church into the gutter by saying, "Good, it does its best work there".
It won’t get me into heaven because there isn’t one, and it doesn’t change the destination because as Thomas Gray said, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave"; it will however, make the trip along whatever path you're on a lot more enjoyable for everyone concerned (and they all are).