THE MADNESS OF HUMAN BEINGS - Steve Taylor

[Guest guest]

THE MADNESS OF HUMAN BEINGS

The Roots of Human Insanity and How Spiritual Development Can Make us

Sane

 

(Originally published in Grail World magazine, March 2007)

 

To an impartial observer – say, an alien zoologist from another

planet – there must be very compelling evidence that human beings

suffer from a serious mental disorder, and are perhaps even insane.

 

The last few thousand years have been an endless catalogue of insane

behaviour. It's impossible to read any history book – dealing with

any period of history over the last five thousand years – without

being shocked by what the historian Arnold Toynbee called `the

horrifying sense of sin manifest in human affairs.' For most

historians, history begins with the civilisations of Egypt and Sumer,

which emerged at around 3500 BCE. And from that point on, right until

the present day, history can be seen as a series of wars: conflicts

over boundaries, raids to win slaves or victims for sacrifice,

invasions to win new territory or increase the glory of the empire.

 

The terrible oppression of women which runs through history – and

which still exists in many parts of the world – is a second example

of this insanity. In almost every society in Europe, the Middle East

and Asia, women were unable to hold influence over political,

religious or cultural affairs. They often couldn't own property or

inherit land and wealth, and were frequently treated as mere property

themselves. In some countries they could be confiscated by money

lenders or tax collectors to help settle debts (this was, for

example, a common practice in Japan from the seventh century CE

onwards).

 

Perhaps the third main characteristic of human insanity in history –

after war and the oppression of women – has been over the massive

inequality which has always filled them, and the rigid classes and

castes which have existed, with vastly different degrees of wealth

and status. Human history has been the story of the brutal oppression

of the great mass of human beings by a tiny privileged minority. This

tiny privileged minority might only make up 1% or 2% of a country's

population, and yet own most of that country's wealth and land, and

have complete control over political, economic and legal decisions.

In nineteenth-century Russia, for example, the Czar owned over 27

million serfs, while noblemen sometimes owned as many as 300,000.

Serfs could be called up for war at any time, leaving their farms to

rot and their families to starve.

 

In addition to this insane collective behaviour, our alien zoologist

might see signs of mental disorder in the way that many of us behave

as individuals. He or she would be puzzled by the fact that human

beings seems to find it so difficult to be happy. Why do so many

people suffer from different kinds of psychological malaise – for

example, depression, drug abuse, eating disorders, self-mutilation –

or else spend so much time oppressed by anxieties, worries and

feelings of guilt or regret, and negative emotions like jealousy and

bitterness? And why do so many people seem to have an insatiable lust

to possess things? Why are we prepared to go to such lengths to

obtain material goods which we don't actually need and which bring no

real benefits to us? In the same way, many people have a very strong

craving for status and success; they dream of being famous pop or TV

stars, and try to gain respect from others by wearing particular

clothes, possessing status symbols or going to certain places or

behaving in a certain way. `Why aren't human beings content just to

be as they are?' the observer might ask himself. `Why are they so

driven to gain wealth and status instead of accepting their situation

and living in the present moment?'

 

Native Peoples

 

Significantly, though, there are many groups of people in the world

who don't seem to be touched by this insanity – or at least, who

weren't until relatively recent times. Indigenous peoples like the

Australian Aborigines, the tribal peoples of Siberia, Lapland,

Oceania and other isolated areas, generally had a very low level of

warfare, if any at all. For example, the majority of the early

anthropologists and missionaries who visited Oceania – and the

neighbouring Papua New Guinea – were struck by the peacefulness of

the `savages' they encountered. The German anthropologist Maximillian

Krieger noted that the Papuans `have no offensive weapons at all, but

live without disturbance from neighbours and without care for the

future.' Another anthropologist, William Graham Sumner, described the

people of German Melanesia as `cowardly and mean' because they would

not attack each other, and noted that `on some of the small islands

war is entirely unknown.'

 

In the same way, the early English colonists of India were shocked to

encounter tribal peoples like the Khonds in Madras and the Rengmahs

of the Assam hills, who showed no signs of aggression and didn't even

seem to have any experience of warfare. The world's native peoples

generally have high status for women, too. In Native American

societies, for instance, women often had more control over political

matters than men. Women often had the job of nominating new chiefs,

and when agreements were made between Native Americans and Europeans

documents often had to be signed by women, since the marks of men

didn't carry any authority. Women were not seen as inferior to men,

and as a result were not dominated or abused. And in contrast to many

male-dominated European and Asian societies – where men were often

entitled to throw out their wives and leave them to starve if they so

desired, while women had no divorce rights at all – Native American

women were usually free to end their marriages at any time. A woman

of the Pueblo culture, for example, could divorce her husband simply

by placing his possessions outside her door, at which point he would

return to his mother's house.

 

Similarly, most native peoples are strikingly egalitarian and

democratic. For example, traditional Australian Aborigine groups

don't have chiefs or leaders, and there are no laws or penalties for

crimes. The elders make most important decisions, and therefore have

some authority, but the rest of the tribe are free to disagree with

them. In traditional African societies, there are no classes or

castes, and the most common form of government is rule by the elders

of the community. As in Aboriginal society, however, the elders don't

have absolute authority but are merely part of a democratic process.

 

There is also evidence that these peoples don't experience the same

kind of psychological suffering as modern human beings. Many

anthropologists have been struck by the apparent serenity and

contentment of native peoples, and the fact that they appear to have

a more unified and peaceful kind of psyche. As Elman R. Service says

of the Copper Eskimos of northern Canada, for example: `The Eskimo

display a buoyant light-heartedness, a good-humoured optimism, which

has delighted foreigners who have lived with them.' The English

anthropologist Colin Turnbull spent three years living with the

Pygmies of central Africa in the 1950s, and describes them as a

strikingly carefree and good-humoured people, free of the

psychological malaise which affects `civilised' peoples. To them, he

writes, life was `a wonderful thing full of joy and happiness and

free of care.'

 

Prehistoric Peoples

 

Even more strikingly, archaeological records indicate that

prehistoric human beings were free from this `insanity,' too.

Archaeological studies throughout the world have found almost no

evidence of warfare during the whole of the hunter-gatherer phase of

history – that is, right from the beginnings of the human race until

8000 BCE. Archaeologists have discovered over 300 prehistoric caves

around the world, dating from 40,000 to 10,000 BCE, not one of which

contains any images of weapons or fighting. There are no signs of

violent death, no signs of damage or disruption by warfare, and

although many other artefacts have been found, including massive

numbers of tools and pots, there is a complete absence of weapons. As

the anthropologist Brian Ferguson points out, `it is difficult to

understand how war could have been common earlier and remain so

invisible.'

 

Prehistoric peoples have no signs of male domination either. In

hunter-gatherer times, women were the main providers. Hunting was a

precarious activity and the men often came home empty handed, but

women reliably gathered between 80-90% of the group's food: berries,

nuts, herbs, wild vegetables and fruits. Prehistoric peoples seem to

have worshipped the female form. Their major art form was small

statuettes of naked women, often with exaggerated breasts and hips.

Literally tens of thousands of these have been found across Europe,

the Middle East and Asia. Other prehistoric artwork shows women in

positions of prestige and authority (as priestesses, for example),

and there is evidence that ancient European societies were

matrilinear and matrilocal (that is, property was passed down through

the female side, and a husband went to live with his wife's family

after marriage).

 

These societies apparently had no different classes or castes either,

with people who had more power and possessions than others. For

archaeologists, the most obvious signs of social inequality are

differences in graves, in terms of size, position and goods inside

them. Later societies have larger, more central graves for

more `important' people, which also have a lot more possessions

inside them. Men generally have more `important' graves than women.

But the graves of prehistoric peoples are strikingly uniform, with

little or no size differences and little or no grave wealth.

 

The Intensified Sense of Ego

 

All of this suggests that there is a fundamental difference between

us and native or prehistoric peoples, a difference which gives rise

to the collective and individual insanity which plagues us. Why

should they be free of the insanity of warfare, oppression and

materialism? And why should they – apparently – be more content than

us? I believe that this fundamental difference is what might be

described as our `intensified sense of ego'.

 

We appear to have a more pronounced sense of individuality – or ego –

than native peoples. According to the anthropologist Lucien Levy-

Bruhl, the essential characteristic of native peoples was their

less `sharpened' sense of individuality. In his words, `the limits of

their individuality are variable and ill-defined.' He notes that,

rather than existing as self-sufficient individual entities – as we

experience ourselves – native peoples' sense of identity is bound up

with their community and their land. He cites reports of native

peoples who use the word `I' when speaking of their group and others

who see their land as an extension of their self, so that being

forced away from their land would be tantamount to death. (This is

why native peoples are often prepared to commit suicide rather than

leave their lands.)

 

The naming practices of certain peoples suggest this too. For us, a

name is a permanent label which defines our individuality and

autonomy. But Australian Aborigines, for example, do not have fixed

names which they keep throughout their lives. Their names regularly

change, and include those of other members of their tribe. Other

native peoples use tekonyms – terms which describe the relationship

between two people – instead of personal or kinship names.On the

other hand, our sense of ego is so defined and strong that many of us

experience a basic sense of separation to nature, other human beings

and even our own bodies. We are self-sufficient individuals who can

exist apart from the natural world, our communities and even each

other.

 

And I believe this intensified sense of ego is the fundamental

madness from which we suffer, and the root cause of our insane

behaviour. (In my book The Fall, I suggest that the intensified ego

originally developed at a particular historical time in a particular

part of the world – about 6000 years ago in the Middle East and

central Asia – which explains why prehistoric peoples were also free

of it.) Intense ego-consciousness is a state of suffering. It brings

a basic sense of isolation, of being separate from other people and

the rest of reality. We experience ourselves as fragile entities

trapped inside our own heads with the rest of the world `out there,'

on the other side. And our egos send a constant stream of `thought-

chatter' through our minds, a chaos of memories, daydreams, worries

and fears which disturbs our being and creates a constant state of

anxiety.

 

In addition, because we live in our thoughts so much, we find it very

difficult to live in the present, and to appreciate the reality and

beauty of the world in which we live. The world becomes a dreary,

half-real place, perceived through a fog of thought. As a result of

this, most people feel a basic sense of incompleteness and

discontent. And this negative state is the basic source of the

cravings for possessions and power and status, which are a way of

trying to complete ourselves and compensate for our inner discord. We

try to complete ourselves – and make ourselves significant – by

gaining power over other people or by collecting wealth and

possessions.

 

And in turn, this desire for wealth and power is at the heart of

warfare and oppression. But just as importantly, our strong sense of

ego means that it's difficult for us to empathise with other people.

We become `walled off' from them, unable to `feel with' them and to

experience the world from their perspective or to sense the suffering

we might be causing them. We become able to oppress and exploit other

people in the service of our own desires.

 

Perhaps the desire for wealth and power, minus the ability to

empathise, is the root of warfare and the oppression of women and

other social groups. Maybe it's also the root cause of our abuse of

the environment. It means that we experience a sense of `otherness'

to nature, and that we can't sense its aliveness, and as a result we

don't feel any qualms about exploiting and abusing it. Beyond the Ego

 

However, there is a method of healing our inner discord and

transcending our insanity: through spiritual development. The whole

purpose of spiritual development is to transcend our intensified

sense of ego, to blunt its walls of separateness and quieten its

chaotic thought-chatter so that we can begin to experience a new

sense of inner content and a new sense of connection to the cosmos

and to other beings. This is what the practice of meditation aims to

do: to generate a state of inner quietness in which the ego fades

away. And this is what happens when we dedicate our lives to serving

others rather than following our own selfish desires: separateness

begins to fall away as we develop a heightened sense of compassion, a

shared sense of being with other people and other creatures.

 

As we transcend the intensified sense of ego, we begin to see the

world as a meaningful and harmonious place, pervaded with Spirit. We

become able to live in the moment and accept ourselves and our lives

as they are, without wanting. And we also move beyond the social

insanity of warfare and oppression. Since there is no discord inside

us, we no longer crave for wealth and power, and now that we are no

longer separate, we have the ability to empathise with other beings,

and so become incapable of abusing or exploiting them. When the ego

is transcended, all of the madness of human behaviour fades away,

like the symptoms of a disease which has now been cured. That is the

only true sanity, and perhaps the only way in which we can hope to

live in peace and harmony on this planet.

 

THE MADNESS OF HUMAN BEINGS

Steven Taylor

www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/The%20Madness%20of%20Human%20Beings.htm