Let us first consider something of great relevance in modern society: what is it that we, as individuals, strive for? Why do we strive at all? In what ways are our exertions significant, if at all?
I like to think that the will to power, being funneled through the complex and somewhat over-imaginative minds that we possess, produces fanciful ontologies in wondrous lands of kitsch and self-deception for the sake of complacency. That is, because the feeling of power and control, even if they are illusory, is paramount to the human being, we create subjective frameworks that promptly situate us in desirable positions of ‘security’ (which is inherent from evolution-based drives that sought safety and avoided danger). Every action we commit is either for the sake of achieving or sustaining a false sense of security. I consider this a ‘sphere of complacency’, that way I don’t have to write out a whole fucking paragraph every time.
Provisional upon a different vocabulary choice, Nietzsche, amongst others, has already asserted this. (I’m just an overachiever for rewriting all of that. )
Now, it seems to me that the greatest and most impending threat to these spheres of complacency is consciousness, i.e. the act of being aware of one’s surroundings. Self-awareness breaks down the sphere of complacency, simply because it dissents against its dictates. When these two forces clash, angst and anxiety ensues. Since every exertion is an attempt to achieve a satisfactory sphere of complacency, and since consciousness itself seems to be swelling within modern society as time goes on, is it not fair to say that eventually these spheres of complacency will collapse? If so, what will fill its void? Another sphere of complacency couldn’t; the incumbent self-awareness will have been too advanced to allow for such idealism. If consciousness negates the sphere of complacency, does that in turn make our own self-deceiving kitsch–the product of the will to power–an escapable prison, despite what other philosophers have maintained? Does the cell we have jailed ourselves in–the same one that Kundera, Sartre, and Nietzsche have said is an inescapable Alcatraz–is, in fact, surpassable; a transcendable thing?
Does consciousness offer hope?
(I should not: my sudden interest in Buddhism may be the blame for this inquiry. Just a FYI.)
In what way? I don’t necessarily disagree with you as of yet, especially with regards that consciousness is merely another mutated branch of evolution, but in what way is this branch bound to be unsuccessful? I mean within the next century we’ll be capable of rendering our own DNA as we see fit. Within the next five centuries we’ll be colonizing new planets, propagating our consciousness(es).
The complexity of consciousness is the achilles heel of the body with it. The more complex, the more prone to dysfunction, the more it deviates from the natural programming of progressing genetic lineage and securing that lineage… Once you do that, the species dies.
Examples of dysfunction:
War
Complex Society
Pro-Creative Apathy
Suicide
Mental Psychosis
Religion
Complex Interdependance
All of these things have, in varying degrees, negative effects on the progression of genetic lineage and the security of that lineage.
I am not saying extinction is definite, but we aren’t out of the woods yet…evolutionarily speaking.
Agreed. But doesn’t the existence of consciousness mean that genetics will–with time–pass the torch on to memetics, so to speak. After all, with the creation of complex societies we are given a whole new arena with which to compete in. With the disappearance of one battleground to wage war in, comes a wholly new one.
I think that it is all just a more complex version of the same basic principle,
and nature doesn’t like complex, single cell organisms proliferate where a human would die very quickly.
I don’t think an accurate prediction as to whether or not our consciousness was a smart evolutionary gamble can be made. The variables increase proportionatly to the complexity of the change in a body, and I think that human consciousness is just about the most complex evolutionary change that I know of.
One thing is for sure, I’d rather be a human than an amoeba if my boat is sinking, even if the amoeba would survive.
There is a chance that we may come full circle to perform our evolutionary purpose and humbly realise that we are just arms of nature and there is nothing we can do about it, that will take a long time, I think. I think, also, that there won’t be so many of us around at that stage, but yes it is inevitable.
I like the framework you provide in your original post.
It seems to me that ordinary consciousness ultimately has no power to negate ‘spheres of complacency’. However ordinary consciousness is one of the main tools we have (what else would we have?) to engage in the effort required to even face the issue to begin with. We can say everything constructed will fall apart on its own, which seems true to me, but the human project as you described it will continue indefinitely. We will rebuild our various versions of New Orleans whether or not it is a good idea to.
Buddhism proposes that what we consider ‘consciousness’ is not a singular unchanging thing. ‘Consciousness’ is reframed in the plural, and the ‘type’ of consciousness that is the basis for a fundamentally more sane approach to life can be best or most fruitfully accessed through the discipline of meditation. If our ordinary consciousness were the true basis for enlightened thought and action then a great athlete who is ‘in the moment’ during a competition or in training would be enlightened, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
The discipline of meditation is a repeated exercise which involves facing our fears and otherwise troublesome emotions without suppressing them or at the other extreme, acting on them. If the meditator begins to settle, without trying to ignore, reject, or draw in the full reality of the immediate situation, then they may discover ‘unconditional confidence’ or ‘bravery’ which naturally becomes the basis for a saner way of relating to the world. This is an expression of our natural state, which is not subject to the limitations that seem to bind us in our personal and collective lives. This is not to say that we literally overcome worldly limitations, but that we are not battered around by them.
I think we all strive for different things. It just so happens that greedy people have discovered a way to take advantage of the rest, and the rest have to deal with it by getting jobs and wasting their time not able to persuit their true goals in life.
But that is my charge, Buddhists have accepted and acknowledged certain things that have taken centuries for other philosophies to realize. An example of this is anatman and the Five Aggregates; to me consciousness, which is considered to be one of the Aggregates, perceives, processes and recognizes the futility in everything, even in consciousness itself. One may become so conscious, so aware of the implications of everything in and around him, that one can technically achieve nirvana. It isn’t so much a state of being nor thinking, just absolute acknowledgment.
I am aware that I am aware that I am aware. And it’s okay because it’s not okay.
)