What Should We Fight to Save?

Fighting to Preserve Our Humanity — But What Is Humanity?

Saturday I went to see the live performance of "A Prairie Home Companion", their March 27th show. I'm a long time fan of the show. We've seen a few live performances of the summer tour in Marymoor Park, in Redmond, WA but this was the first time seeing the live show that was going out on the radio waves. What a thrill.

While sitting in the incredible (though somewhat ostentatious) Paramount Theater watching the performers and listening to the excellent talent I could not help but think about all of the incredible cultural achievements of humanity. I honestly experienced a strong feeling of love for human aesthetic creations. The singers and musicians were fantastic. I was really caught up in the display of talent and caring that they put into their performances. Humans have been incredibly creative in so many cultural, artistic ways. I started to feel a spark of hopefulness that humanity, in spite of the rampant foolishness that the species has expressed of late and that has dominated my thinking in these blogs, is also so wonderfully beautiful in its production of art and music and literature (or at least some fraction of what is called art, music, and literature these days). What a terrible shame if we cannot preserve and carry on this tradition of creativity in spite of the coming bottleneck and associated turmoil.

I realized, while listening to the Wailin' Jennys harmonize that whatever fate has in store for us poor wisdom-stunted Homo sapiens, we have to put up a fight for salvation if for no other reason than to preserve the better parts of our creative spirits. Mankind has produced some wonderful aesthetic artifacts. What a desolate place Earth would be without music, and art, and stories, the positive contributions of humanity to the universe. Our genus is the only source of these creations. Imagine our world, devoid of humans to appreciate inspiring creativity, the books, paintings, statues, CDs, and all other aesthetic artifacts turning to dust, and no creative artists to ever produce anything more of beauty. This thought, more so than thoughts about the demise of our species, leaves me in profound sadness.

In fact this is in keeping with my thoughts about the future of human civilization (and the University of Noesis) in spite of the demise of high powered energy from fossil fuels. The key concept in those thoughts had always been self-actualization. In other words, the point of being a human being with the kind of consciousness that we poses, is that we can experience the thrill of being alive; the thrill of creating something worthwhile and new and have it recognized by others of our kind as worthy of appreciation and enjoyment. This is what differentiates us from mere beasts. We have the capacity to enjoy and know that we are enjoying. This is my brand of spiritualism, appreciation of what human thought and creativity can accomplish. I have dreams of what humanity can be. If you want to experience the thrill of appreciation of what humanity can be in terms of producing something wonderful, listen to Brandi Carlile's incredible song, "Dreams" (4th track on her album, "Give up the Ghost", Brandie was a guest performer on Prairie Home Companion who entranced the audience! If you go to her Web site, the album will automatically play. Also you can listen to the podcast of PHC which is now available at the above link.). It might change your despair into hope!

I feel much the same joy in understanding what science has to offer. Knowledge is extremely gratifying for its own sake. Even if it is disconcerting to realize that Homo sapiens is less than fit to survive in the very environment that it created, it is deeply rewarding to be able to comprehend the reason for the problem. More than that, understanding the problem leads to understanding the bigger picture of evolution. And in that, understanding the potential for humanity.

What is Humanity?

Humanity isn't just our species.

Our current species is lost amid its own weaknesses. There is a collective thinking that material goods are the epitome of worthiness. In part this is learned. Our culture imbues this 'reality' in our young. But it is a reality that is easily imbued in our young, because we are not a very mature consciousness. We are easily seduced by false dreams. We are not yet truly a wise (sapient) species.

But, humanity is our progeny's destiny.

I refuse to believe that evolution has been a waste of time. I know our species has failed. But all species fail, eventually. That is evolution after all. Nothing stays the same forever. Why should it?

Nevertheless, evolution has produced some fantastic results! I know this sounds teleological to those who are blinded by abject objectivity. But to deny the obvious seems so, well, dumb! The human brain represents the epitome of conscious, adaptive autonomous agents. It evolved after an extraordinary long time from the simplest adaptive single celled creatures to the capabilities it has to reflect on itself. That, no matter how you slice it, is progress. We humans are not worthless beings who are destined for the scrap heap of evolution. We are a single genus; the only genus to have achieved second order consciousness, a tremendous accomplishments for apes! If our species goes extinct out genus goes extinct and that is the end of creativity. I just can't accept that that is our fate.

So Homo sapiens has apparently failed to reach a level of adaptability needed by the species to continue in this increasingly complex world. So what? Evolution doesn't care if a single species proves unfit. Humanity isn't about being just a single species. Evolution isn't finished with the raw material. We are a genus, more than a species. A genus can give rise to many different species in the course of evolution. This is established in the history of evolution. What is needed to advance the program for humanity is a change in environment. And that is about to happen. The world that we have affected is about to change in multiple ways. The climate is about to undergo some very interesting changes reminiscent of those that gave rise to previous major species emergences for our genus in the past. This time, we created the motive forces for the change. It is ironic but not unprecedented. The real question is what comes next?

The real irony is that we have achieved a level and depth of knowledge that allows those of us who are perceptive to understand what is happening. We do not have to accept a mere slap down by evolutionary forces that would remove our humanity from the future. We can project what is truly human into the future world, whatever it may be.

My village of 500 (or whatever number) has to have a way to protect and promote the Brandi Carliles of the future world as well as preserve the best of the past. The soul of humanity is in what we create. It is in what we enjoy and appreciate. In the end our culture is us. Humanity, hopefully a Homo eusapiens species, will be able to sit and listen to the Brandi's of the future and feel grateful for life and consciousness. They will listen to Beethoven and Wagner and to the composers of that time. They will look at Van Gogh and see the story of humanity. They will have artists to create the future stories of humanity. Individuals will seek self-actualization, but so too will the genus.

We need to find ways to preserve the best of Homo sapiens while building on this history of creativity and feelings. We cannot give up on what we have gained in the realm of appreciation even if our materialistic culture crumbles beneath our feet. The University of Noesis must continue to have core of creativity as its soul. Yes, future humans will need to attend to the practical aspects of life. But not without an appreciation for the aesthetics of living. In the end this is what makes us human.

I have a belief. I believe that musicians often tap into something very primordial in our psyches. Long time readers know that I have a fondness for the music of Queen because their lyrics and music speak to something I feel deeply. Silly, probably. Nevertheless, it affects me. Brandi's song — Dreams — is beautiful beyond words (melody and lyrics). It reminds me, no, it makes me feel, the worthiness of the fact that I have dreams. I haven't given up on humanity even if I seem to have written off the current species. The future is what we dream. We must fight to preserve our genus and our dreams. This is what I think it means to be human.

Comments

[Ann]

So true. It is unfortunate that the very departments that preserve and promote creativity; music,literature,painting, dance and the like, are slated to be cut from school budgets because of the current economic crisis. In the future, it will be up to individuals and not schools to pass on this type of knowledge probably through apprenticeships. This is the primary way these subjects used to be taught.

[Robin Datta]

Some might consider saving a few luthiers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luthier
so that others can draw beauty out of their creations
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gupta.html
And then ofcourse there is the extensive accumulated creations of the past.

[David]

I'm not convinced that man's artistic achievements are of any objective value. The raw stuff of art is just patterns of stimuli on our senses that we interpret against a context of arbitrary rules and our own imaginations. Even within our species, art of another culture from our own is just 'strange' - just think of Chinese music created using a different musical scale. Taking it one step further, if I view Beethoven's Fifth on the screen of an oscilloscope I'm afraid it doesn't do much for me, and listening to a scan of the Mona Lisa likewise.

Yes, great art really stirs our souls, but so does great drugs, apparently.

[David]

I think the question of what art is, is a very interesting one. I'm never quite sure what it is that other people are getting from it. I know very ordinary people who claim to read something into the 'installations' in the 'Tate Modern' gallery in London. I don't believe them.

Elgar is reputed to have said "The British don't like music; they just love the noise it makes." - which sort of ties in with my earlier remark about art vs. drugs, and possibly religion.

Personally, there are pieces of music, and types of music, that I love. But what is it about them that I love? In some cases I suspect that it is an association with something else. For example, do I love the music of Vaughan Williams in itself, or the fact that it reminds me of childhood as the music that accompanied the black and white British films of the 1950s that used to be on television?

I do not get any pleasure from the music of Stockhausen (although giving pleasure may not be a prerequisite of good art) and I cannot help but feel that someone who claims to be enjoying it or reads something deep into it is either pretentious or deluding themself! And when the same person also claims to see the mannered, prissy music of Mozart (which no doubt was radical in another time and in the context of a set of musical 'rules' long since abandoned) as a masterpiece it makes me wonder what is wrong with me.

At the same time I find myself to be incredibly adventurous musically, compared to 99% of my acquaintances. I have an insatiable appetite for new stuff wherever it may come from. I find that most people like to listen to the music that was around when they were students, or to new music that they are 'told to like' by heavy marketing, airplay etc. Personally I don't know anyone who, like me, sifts through tracks by unsigned artists on the internet, or obscure psychedelia from the 60s, looking for my next 'fix' - but only liking a small proportion of it.

[Vern]

Was at the same show! I took my folks (late 70s) for my Dad's birthday.

The Wailin' Jennys were my favorite -- incredible, tight harmonies over simple accompaniment. As a singer myself, they did unbelievable things with those harmonies... still processing, days later.

Anyway just an awesome show!

I worry about what / who replaces GK when he's gone. He's a national treasure.

[George Mobus]

Ann,

In my ideal world, everyone would attend the College of Aesthetics to learn about art, music, etc.; to experience them. Everyone would have an opportunity to be creative in various ways. But we know that not everyone will be supremely creative in the way great composers, artists, and writers are. So I would see those who show the talent would be given the opportunity to learn more about how to produce their art form while the rest of us would have an opportunity to appreciate their work.

Just as I think it is a mistake to try to make everyone take lots of math and science in the form of trying to make them into mathematicians and scientists, which ends up scaring away even some of those who could have become so and spoils the rest for having an appreciation of science, I think too much emphasis on performance in an artistic talent (like a required drawing class) also has a stunting effect on would-be performers and appreciators.

I'm sorry to see the aesthetics minimized in schools, but based on some of the learning objectives I've seen put out for some of these classes where the assumption is that you can teach talent, I am not sorry if those go. Aesthetic expression needs to be voluntary and spontaneous with positive reward feedback spurring those with talent to go further in developing their skills. Save the appreciation classes yes. And then you might have money to fund the performance classes for the few who are really talented and motivated.

Just my immediate thoughts!
--------------------------------

Robin,

Have any ideas about how to select the best and preserve them for the future? I'd hate to lose Beethoven et. al.
---------------------------------

David,

Well you know what they say? To each their own!
---------------------------------

Vern,

Too right about Keillor! The problem of preserving anything stored in media (film, CDs, etc.) is a real challenge. One day I imagine we will be back to much of culture being transmitted via memories and word-of-mouth. But I hope we can find ways to save just a bit, a sample, of all of the great works.
-------------------------------

George

[David]

"Well you know what they say? To each their own!"

I actually find that quite an interesting comment. After writing a piece on the value of mankind's cultural achievements and the necessity to save what we can, you then, in effect, imply that no artistic or cultural artefact has any more value than any other. It suggests that there is no discussion to be had on 'art'.

Personally I would love to know why or how people choose the art they are passionate about, but the answer seems to be off limits! It cannot be discussed. It is what it is. It is beyond question.

[GaryA]

Another fine post George. Our humanity-our uniqueness-I believe resides in being able to(dimly)sense the wholeness of what we really are; the whole self-evolving universe. This sense of something-greater-than-we-are is amplified and resonates via art and music. Throughout history this feeling has been misdirected (and abused) into all sorts of theologies, myths, cults and ideologies but the basic pure feeling of awe and mystery is something we all grasp now and again-until we fall into the stupor of everyday living!

You said;
"I refuse to believe that evolution has been a waste of time. I know our species has failed. But all species fail, eventually. That is evolution after all. Nothing stays the same forever. Why should it?"

This is a recurring theme in my thoughts and something which cant be easily addressed in a few paragraphs. one absolutly key fact in my opinion is that civilisation arose simultaneously in several areas of the world so it was somehow written into the story of humanity and not some random tragic accident. The millions of victims, human and non-humans through the ages tempt us into a blind nihilistic hatred of civilisation-especially industrial civilisation. The idea that separation and forgetting of being- alive implicit in its 'progress' are somehow part of a plan stretches credibility until you think of the metaphor of the hopelesssly addicted drug victim who will never change until they reach rock bottom and near death....but until that moment they will flail about desperately seeking the 'fix' (a technological fix all too familar in our 21st century).
Perhaps the gift can be eventually separated from the curse but that would entail a organisation of society which we would barely recognise as a society.
I'm struggling to explain consisly because trains of thought diverge and converge on various aspects of your blogs -one day I'll pop them is a longer e-mail.

[George Mobus]

David,

"...you then, in effect, imply that no artistic or cultural artefact has any more value than any other."

Caution. Do not project your interpretation!

I was only commenting on the fact that aesthetic value is a personal value. How we decide on what gets saved and such I will leave to those facing doing so. All I am trying to say here is that we cannot give up on one of the key elements that gives our species humanity, an appreciation of aesthetics.

You raise an interesting point re: why do people choose what they choose. But then go on to imply there is, perhaps, some objective way to do so (or am I projecting ;^) I think this would be an interesting investigation for psychology. But I'm not sure it is particularly important to my point. The fact is, that we, some of our Homo predecessors and co-inhabitants of this planet have found something of value in artistic expression. This is one of the signature aspects of humanness. I believe that it is a part of both our heritage and brain evolution that must be preserved (perhaps enhanced) in any future versions of the human condition.

George

[George Mobus]

GaryA,

"I'm struggling to explain consisly because trains of thought diverge and converge on various aspects of your blogs -one day I'll pop them is a longer e-mail."

I hope you do. I sense some great ideas in formation!

George

[Miroslav Miskovic]

Scientific-technological revolution and the historical consciousness.The way how the mankind developed through last 40 000 years,expressed in terms of semiotics.