I came across a study, one about, human nature with a goal in mind. An effort to 'find out what human nature consists of as viewed from an objective, scientific, third-person point of view'. The aim was 'to find out how to live well'; and I think nothing can be more holistic than this. It further makes certain assertions about human nature and what we need to do in order to experience the fulfillment of functioning well. And its main findings can be summarized as the following.
1. We have a much greater intelligence than other animals.
2. We can be far more loving, powerful, cooperative and enthusiastic about life.
3. These traits, along with intelligence itself, are diminished by emotional distress, but we have the capacity to recover from such distress through the innate healing mechanism of emotional discharge. The more we do so, the better we function.
4. We are good for each other, or rather, we are indispensable for each other.
5. We have an innate sense of morality and religion. Even atheists find satisfaction in aligning themselves with a purpose greater than themselves.
Can we call this as human nature? Isn't this, the nature of all that has life? In each and every form of life, all of this appears, perhaps with differing intensity, varying contexts and relevance. What then differentiates human from all the others?
The difference, I find is this. Whenever human is to engage in any form of transaction, unseen dimensions crop up, and gather some attention, if not dictating its essence and spirit in full. Whereas, all the other forms of life shall be carrying out the current engagement with single-minded dedication and complete involvement. Since we have been living in this manner for many a generation, now we have in our kitty, quite a few dimensions to whatever can elicit a reaction from us. All such dimensions, or at least whatever struck our imagination, kept getting added to a kitty, and got cemented as the natural features of the human. And it continues. This phenomenon gives rise to very many attributes, transactions, and responses, and is collectively identified as our cultural wealth. And at any time, many, we celebrate, and a few, we despise.
Now it is clear. Till we acquired an ambience in our character that kept looking for the unseen, human would have been just another one of the animal kingdom. Which brings up another significant question to answer. How did we acquire the propensity to look for unseen dimensions in all that we see? I think we acquired it en route. We also started our journey like all other living forms, but, certain events would have been significant enough to spark such a variation.
If so, won’t a glance at our past should show those sparks? Yes, and I think, it will. Also, these may be of a major upheaval of the physical world, an explosion in the cultural sphere, an enigma of the psychological domain, or another factor with deep influence on our lives. Now, if we examine the way human species did grow over the years, I think, the first time the whole world felt a severe jolt that left a permanent scar, would have been when the geocentric universe collapsed.
Remember, geocentric universe is an intuitive idea, and it fits well with whatever we see. Here, naturally occurring thoughts and other logical elements are sufficient to manipulate or predict the parameters of interest. But, when the heliocentric systems took the center stage, things would have gone for a toss. The intuitive became instantly unreliable, paving the way for the altruistic to rule over the realistic. Abstract calculations of the surreal genre, ever-present danger from hidden variables, and the perpetual presence of unseen elements, are some parts of the mystic edifice that changed the way we approach issues.
Consequently, we humans have had a haphazard past. Not that they did not progress, but progress did not happen in an optimum manner. Or, the progress happened in spurts and bursts.
Take for example, the idea of heliocentric universe. Suppose this idea occurred to us well after we mastered the art of machine computing. We still would have been in our comfort zones of geocentric outlook, all the complexity of computations relegated to the rather invisible internals of relevant computers or other devices. Our ideas and notions would not have been imagination intensive, letting a large populace take active part in it. As a result, the whole society would have been remaining active in rather profitable ventures. In fact the very idea of learning would have been taking a route of unfettered enjoyment, and in close link with whatever challenges we face in life. This, needless to say, is more or less in line with how it is with all the other forms of life. Moreover, even the epoch changing issues and outcomes that will have a significant say on the future of the planet shall now on present a rather down-to-earth ambience. And the result: a more homogeneous populace and a bright future.
