The Resilient Human
When for the sake of our own survival we adapt to certain exigencies of life in ways which contradict the established mythos by which we have defined our personalities, we often attribute the causes of those adaptations to a perceived weakness, frailty or fickleness in human nature. On the contrary, such adaptations (although often vehemently denied) testify to the indomitable resilience of the human spirit.
Several ideas are implied here:
1. That we do adapt to changes and events in life, creating visible changes to our personalities and changing the way we process information. This itself leads to the question of whether or not certain aspects of the personality have been latent, and are forced to the surface under extreme circumstances, whether the changes are actually brought about by external influences, or whether it is a combination of these two working together.
2. Our perception of our personality can be different than our true personality… i.e. we think that we think one way, when in reality, we think in some way different. This comes from a lack of contemplation, so that we do not “know ourselves,” and also an innate desire for self-deception. In the end, we believe about ourselves what we want to believe about ourselves, since it is easier than facing the truth.
3. Personality then becomes a myth that we create for ourselves, and then thrust upon the world, expecting others to believe it.
4. Since we think in a particular way, (for the sake of example, we’ll call it M[β], mode beta, being the secondary overlay we assume is primary; when in reality, we operate under M[α], (mode alpha, our actual primary human nature); we have a tendency to expect that we would react in a way consistent with M[β] (we will designate this reaction as R[β].) In actuality, when the moment of crises comes, out of instinct, we react in a way consistent with M[α.] R[α] thus comes as a surprise, even a deviation from our expected patterns of “normal” human behavior.
5. The reaction (R[α]) is based on the most basic instincts in human nature, and is motivated by survival, be it in the physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual sense. The reaction is itself an adaptation to the environment, although it can include “fight-or-flight” responses (which deal with leaving a hostile environment or changing aspects of that environment by removing potential threats or open hostility on the part of an aggressor, which itself is a forcing of the environment to adapt to the nature of the prey.)
6. In complex societies, M[α] human instincts which were designed to protect human beings can become a source of fear, since instinctive protective reactions / adaptation (IPR/A) are often perceived as acts of aggression by individuals functioning as active or passive participants in a social structure/system (S3) perceived by an individual (designated Human X (H[X])) to be repressive or threatening. Since the repressive force of the social system is either exerted passively, subtly, unintentionally, or at a rate which falls under the level of conscious threat detection by the vast majority of human beings; it is entirely possible that different human beings with different levels of perception, different areas of knowledge, and varying degrees of proximity to areas of S3 would perceive the level of personal threat in different ways. Consequently, an unintentional IPR/A would come as a surprise not only to H[X], but to S3 as well, and could easily be punished as an unprovoked act of aggression; although the provocation was only recognized by H[X].
7. Given the external psychological forces on H[X] which, internalized, created the M[β] overlay; it is conceivable that:
a. M[α] instincts would naturally be suppressed
b. IPR/A actions would be avoided for the damage they could cause to S3
c. H[X] could, even after committing an IPR/A offence, find himself deserving of the censure and/or punishment stipulated by S3.
In seeking to rationalize the source of his behavior, which he cannot understand; if H[X] cannot exonerate S3 from any culpability; he will seek to blame either an individual’s behavior (i.e. the behavior of an individual in S3 or his own,) a defect in his own thought processes (i.e. mental illness or associated disorders,) or the entirety of human nature.
8. This third assumption was the focus of the post: if the guilt of the system cannot be excused, and it cannot be blamed on another individual, and the human cannot shoulder its burden himself, then the perceived “fault” must be attributed to the entire whole of humanity as a form of weakness or capriciousness, a susceptibility to sudden and irrational change.
9. In actuality, the conclusion that the human nature does have the capacity for sudden change is not far from reality; however, the domination dynamic that S3 exerts over H[X] demands that this universal human quality of adaptability must be viewed as a weakness instead of a strength.
