Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Mutuality

Mutuality

By Piankhy Thompson copyright 2005

Mutualism in the Science of Ecology means the same as what is generally referred to a symbiosis, or mutually helpful relationships between organisms. In Integral Science, this concept--together with that of Parasitism--is borrowed and expanded into not only an evolutionary but a logical, ethical, cosmological and cultural doctrine. Integral Science distinguishes Mutualism (or win-win relationships between and within organisms) and Parasitism (or lose-lose relationships between organisms), as joint phenomena in the process of ecological and cosmological evolution. It bears emphasizing at the outset that these definitions refer to relationships between and within entities and not to any given individual organism or class of organisms. The organisms that modern medicine and biology classifies as parasites are not so regarded in this understanding--there are no parasites per se but only more or less parasitic or "Dysmutual" relationships between and within individuals.

Because it is consciously moral, philosophical and "religious" as well as empirical, Integral Science identifies the order of things in which mutualism predominates over parasitism as a healthy and desirable state of affairs. It identifies the present order of things as one in which parasitism predominates over mutualism generally, and regards this state of affairs as a relatively unhealthy state of devolution or "biological erosion".

The Integral Scientist affirms the "world" or ultimate context of his or her existence to be self-evidently one of Mutuality inclusive of the Dysmutuality of Parasitism but transcending this as well. It is also inclusive of, but not limited to the "Universe" of Causality. Another way of saying this is to  say that the integral scientist affirms a Logic a kind of logic or Reason in which Mutuality is primary and causality is secondary in principle, so that the assertion of one thing or event causing another is understood to be only a, sometimes useful, lense though with to see view the reality of a situation or experience.

Now to conceive of evolution in the context of Mutuality is to conceive of a Creative and Co-creative Evolution in which the subjectivity, existential participation, and volition of beings is not excluded but rather is assumed as "together-with" there objectivity. The scheme of evolution and human history that this implies is not primarily linear and causal--indeed, this relatively non-causal scheme reveals the present primacy of linear and causal thinking as itself a symptom of the present primacy of Parasitic disintegration over the integrating dynamic of Mutuality in our collective and individual experience.

What is being presented here then, despite the borrowing of some ecological vocabulary, is not an extension of the understanding and practice of modern ecological science and biology but something reflective of a different Gestalt and ground of being altogether. It is a worldview, which however does attempt to engage, redeem, and heal those understandings and concepts of the passing paradigm, which seem amenable to such treatment. The Context of Mutuality describes a healthier, more inclusive Subject/Objectivity in which the reader is invited participate consciously, not only on empirical, but on pragmatic and moral grounds.

Mutuality and Competition

Prince Kropotkins "Mutual Aid", the observations of Lewis Thomas, and the "Microcosmos" explorations of Margilus and Sagan are some of the many testimonies to the reality and power of Mutuality and Mutualism that are redeemable in the context of this new understanding. The Darwinian/Spencerian view of competition and survival of the fittest as predominating motives or forces of evolution are amply discredited even in the literature of the passing paradigm. And those who mistake the goal and motive of evolution to be survival must resort to ever more abstract, reductionistic, and obviously tautological arguments. What is not sufficiently brought out is that what is usually called competition is in fact a Parasitic or lose-lose relationship between organisms and that it is Life and Freedom and not survival, which is the primary motive for all beings. The present essay will discuss the parasitic nature of competition as the question of the meaning and purpose of Life has already been treated in another essay in this series.

Among the more accessible of extant writings on the subject, the work of Alfie Cohen in the books "No Contest" and "Punished by Reward" amply demonstrate the way in which competition in human life deflects attention and energy from the actual quality and experience of a deed or process, toward the uncertain and indefinite end of winning over another, and how this results in a degradation in quality of the task or process itself, no matter what the result. It is also clear that the inner psychology and experience of even the "winner" of a competition is far from being secure or even happy for long. For there is always the subsequent stress of the maintenance of ones position and the knowledge of ones inevitable decline, as well as the often accompanying fear of it being discovered, or merely alleged, that one has cheated.

Besides this there is on the part of all contenders, an inner; division and competition going on between the natural tendencies, desires, and demands of the organism and the demands of the ego and superego. The inner "political situation" of any truly competing individual is inevitably a state of Tyranny in which the majority of the organism is forced into service of a will, which is not the true sovereign of the individual's wholeness. The senseless and bootless campaigns of this parasitic "tyrant" are not only wasteful and exploitative but eventually lead to the inner "revolution" that is physical and psychological illness. Such competition inevitably requires a dampening of the inner "democratic" process of feedback in the form of a habitually suppressive application of various kinds of anesthesia. This is because such feedback (usually coming in the form of pain) is distracting and would, if listened to result in a "slackening of pace" which might result in the loss of the competition.

This increase in the role of anesthesia in the process of competition is very important in furthering of the disintegration of the individuals involved since at this point they are not only "taxing" their wholeness unreasonably but actually becoming unconscious of and dissociated from this wholeness. Indeed one of the reasons other animals usually avoid competition is that there are natural limits to the amount of anesthetic substances that an animal can produce within itself and a natural limit to those that exist in its environment. Therefore they are incapable of maintaining the state of "inner-out-of-touchness" that is compatible with prolonged competition. Human beings however can actually convert non-anesthetic substances into more anesthetic ones as a side effect of their biological and technological development and thus are capable of indefinite "progress" in inner and outer disintegration and competition as a species. I don't want to say, however, that competition and other forms of Parasitism precede the diminishment of consciousness that attends the habitual production and consumption of anesthetic substances by human beings. And neither do I intend to imply that it follows it. I intend only to associate them as part of the symptomology of the past and present primacy of Parasitism and Dysmutuality.

The picture that these considerations give of our present situation is that of Humanity as unconscious participants in a ecological disease of the cultural and biological erosion that goes along with the increasing reversal of the healthy order of Mutualistic relationships vis-a-vis Parasitic ones. This condition is outwardly evident in the disintegral behavior of war, slavery, competitive capitalism, communism,etc., and their related earth depleting technologies and ways of life. But it is also evident more inwardly, in the anxiety and confusion that attends the fragmentation and dissociated "zoning" of Knowledge into competing religious, political, academic, aesthetic, etc.,provinces and by the rituals of our everyday lives.

Our sexuality, for example, is assailed outwardly by the competition involved in acquiring and keeping a partner (and the accompanying stress of mere economic survival) at the same time as being inwardly harassed by lose-lose performance expectations, insecurities and anxieties of each participant that derive from a dissociated conception of sexuality itself. And so here too, a condition of mutual exploitation is the norm. This results in a competitive style of sexuality itself in which female "satisfaction" involves male exhaustion and male "satisfaction" involves female exploitation and neglect. In reality both sexes are the losers. And yet the habitual prescription of Tantric or Taoist sexuality for this problem fails to address both the inner and outer undermining environments of competition, which ultimately foil such decontextualized attempts at mutuality. I speak of both outer socio-economic pressures and insecurities and of inner entrainment and imprinted habits of fragmented thinking, feeling and experiencing. The problem of parasitism and competition in any area must be solved in a coordinated way that addresses it in all its manifestations while relating it to a more inclusive understanding.

The Implication of Mutuality

There is an important and paradoxical implication of Mutuality that bears discussing here. This is the fact that Mutuality bears the same relationship to parasitism as love does to fear. Love has nothing to fear even of fear itself, and would not be real Love if it did not extend to its opposite in a positive (is sometimes firm) way. In the same way, the imperative of Mutuality is the embrace and engagment of Parasitism (which is, after all only a form of confused or "dys" Mutuality) in the manner of an older sibling embracing and edifying a younger one. The Mutuality/Love involved here does not preclude the "discipline" or "Tough Love" that is often necessary in such situations, but it does involve a true regard and win-win approach to Parasitism and the fear and evil that go along with it. Like the Aikidoist, the Mutualist seeks to interact with the outer as well as the inner "opponent" in such a way that the latter is both protected and educated. He seeks to interact in a way that results ultimately in an increase of integrity and togetherness on both sides. True mutuality must include Dysmutuality. True Integrity must integrate disintegration.

The Mutualist then understands and affirms that when Mutualism "wins" then Parasitism also "wins", that when Good "wins" so does Evil, when Love "wins" so does Fear; all in the sense of the latter "negative" quality being redeemed and healed by the discovery and resumption of its proper place in the general context of Mutuality itself. And in this winning even the former, positive, quality can expect to be altered and enhanced.

When this reintegration and redemption happens then "Evil", "Fear", and "Parasitism" reveal themselves to be indispensable aspects of our individual and collective existence drawing us forward just as much as Good, Love and Mutuality draw us, toward our destiny of Life and Freedom. Then Parasitic "Dysmutuality" becomes "Dismutuality"; appropriate and integrated force, boundary, structure, extension, and resistance. The fact that this transformation seems never complete or final merely indicates that our work of integration and redemption is not yet complete. And this, if viewed rightly, is a circumstance to be grateful for. Who would have no more of Love just to destroy Fear? Who would renounce Good just to get rid of Evil? Even if this were possible, the karma of deciding to do it would stir up the waters all over again. When there are no students then there are no more teachers and no more of the joy of learning and teaching. And this would mean there would be no more Healthy Knowledge or Health Culture to be learned and taught to ourselves and each other*(see footnote). In which circumstance, what would everybody do?

That the Integral Scientist/ Mutualist progressively learns to enjoy such paradoxes is a sign of his or her own growing maturity, sophistication, and ability at the Life-Dance, which is itself essentially a paradoxical process. For the Life-Dance truly is a dance of Mutuality; a process though which we generate a Living Matrix as structured Mutuality which then gestates our Self-Nature and Individual-Personhood, progressively making them manifest in the world...

Footnote:*Such a circumstance is nevertheless, not only inconceivably possible and inconceivably inevitable, but inconceivably actual and accomplished. As such however there is nothing more that can really be said or done about it.

Supplement

Predation and Compromise

The bulk of  the preceeding essay was written by me more than three years ago. Having reread it on line just now,  I notice  that I fail to treat explicitely  of the  two important and very relevant  issues, namely predation and compromise. I want to try to remedy that is this supplement.

As for Predation, I see no reason to regard it as a pathology of any kind except when some artificial form of anesthesia--and hence some artifice of  unbalanced human culture--is involved. At that point it becomes more like paracitism than real predation. It is only because of our hyper-anesthetic estrangement from our real bodies (from the part of nature that we are) and from the reality  and balance inherent in the dance of being born, eating, killing, dying,  being eaten, etc. that we regard predation as evil. Because we do not  use the knowledge of our certain and impending death mutualistically, as an inspiration and a challenge to dance towards Life and Freedom, we see no use for it  or for the creatures and events that bring it about. In a  culture of  apart-ness and inner and outer dysmutuality, death becomes  just another thing to compete with, and a kind of survival that is intrinsically meaningless and pathological replaces Life in a kind of miserable  metastasis of sick culture which  those  suffering from it most  mistakenly descibe as "civilization". 

By saying all of this I do not want to suggest  that individual-persons should seek death at all. As I wrote in another essay; to seek death is to seek nothing at all since we are going to die anyway.  But to be in mutuality with death is not to seek it  but to use it  (and to use the knowledge of it) as it should be used. When we do this we find ourselves really Living in as much as it is in us to really  Live, and in such real Life there is joy and gratitude that is unconditional and inclusive both Life and Death which , not being held in rigid apartness are progressively reconciled and in Freedom progressively Trancended.

As for  Compromise.  It might be assumed that compromise is more mutualistic and hence, more desirable than competition. I hesitate to agree with this, regarding comprise as it is usually  practiced as a kind of repressed and introjected competition in which both parties think that they lose a little and both parties think that they  win a little.  My  feeling  is that this is a misperception that just maintains competative paradigm and a state of affairs that is inherently unsustainable and prone to degeneration.

The difference between compromise and  mutuality is that  the process of mutuality  assumes the existance and pursues the manifestation, of  an outcome that can be honestly celebrated --not just tolerated --by all (and I dont just mean by the parties directly involved).  It is guided by a faith in this possiblity--a faith in togetherness over apartness--and because of this, is likely to lead to out comes that (when seen withen a given context) are far healthier than any other kind.  An arragement that feels like a tepid compromise when arrived at as a result of competition  will actually be the sorce of real fellow feeling (as well having a different subseqent history) if it is come to and seen by all parties, after a joint good-faith search, as the most win-win arrangement  possible under the circumstances. (such an example is somewhat fanciful because the whole energy, intent and understanding of the two kinds of interaction is so different that  it seems unlikely that they would lead to exactly the same arrangement in response to the same conditions).

I think a main reason for this is because, in the context of healthy culture and a non-competative approach, the "prize" or goal in any interaction is never some "object" primarily but an increase of mutuality itself and the furturing of inner and outer healing that this implies. In Mutuality, the participants to not see, feel or indentify themselves or their "interests" as mutually exclusive but as mutually inclusive, they therefor see any conflict as an opportunity for reaffirming this and also perhaps as welcome challenge to the collaborative creativly of all involved --the kind of challenge that keeps things from getting boring. In comparison with the feelings generated  by such a process, understanding and intention, the results of "comprise" seem to me only sightly preferable to the results of competition and perhaps not ultimately preferable at all.

posted by: piankhy | 19:02 | comments