Now that we've discovered something about the soil of China, her geography, let us move on to the nature of the seed that was planted in her. The seed is the Homo species. To discover the nature of the species we will take a brief look at the origination of the species along with her prehistoric cultural development. We will see that the roots of all the major religions and philosophies of the world are found in prehistoric times. This includes the Three Doctrines of China, i.e. Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Because prehistoric China, on account of her isolation, was a late bloomer, we will first examine the development of the primary prehistoric cultures. Each of these cultures has major reflections in Chinese prehistory, which inevitably manifest in the unique Chinese philosophies. Thus before looking at the archaeology of prehistoric Chinese cultures, we will look at the Cultural Ages of the homo species. We will then tie China into the global picture.
Reader: “Sorry to interrupt, but what does this discussion of the origination of the species have to do with me? I’m reading this book to discover something about the fundamentals of life, not to learn about social evolution. What relevance does this section have to my life?”
Writer: “Thanks for the wake up call. I was shifting into my educational mode.”
Reader: “Don’t. If I want to learn about things I’ll take a class from a qualified professional, which you are not. I’m only reading about China to gain an insight into my life, not because I care that much about China. Because of your lack of credentials your work only has relevance as wisdom reflected through China’s prism, not as knowledge, in and of itself. That is the realm of professors.”
Writer: “You’re right. Sorry. I was slipping off onto a side path. Thanks for keeping me on track."
Reader: "My pleasure."
Writer: “This next section is exceedingly important to all of us in that it unveils some foundational levels that determine our actions. Basically conditioning establishes a behavioral momentum, which is hard to resist. It inadvertently dominates our responses to existence – regularly turning us into sacrificial victims of fate rather than masters of our destiny. Our conditioning derives from genetic, cultural & familial sources. Further our modern culture is based upon ancient culture. So it behooves us to examine our roots in order to transcend the behavior patterns that lead us to our doom, or premature extinction. The following discussion looks at the many different types and levels of human conditioning. This will help us to break free of the chains that bind us to the Wheel of Transmigration (in simpler words: self destructive behavior patterns). For a more thorough discussion of this topic see the article Conditioning vs. Transcendance.”
Reader: "Enough said. Maybe more than enough."
To come to a better understanding of our behavioral foundations let us begin our discussion with the origination of our species.
Modern humans fall into the Kingdom of Animalia, order of Primates, suborder Anthropoidea, which contains Hominoidea, which includes comprehending apes, Pongidae, and hominids, Hominidae. According to evolutionary facts Hominids diverged from their genetic cousins, the apes, some 5 million years ago[1].
The early hominids seemed to live mainly in Africa. A few million years later, maybe 2 million years ago, hominids then divided into two genera, Australopithecines and Homo. The genus homo distinguished themselves by their ability to make tools. Because this was so long ago the only tools that we can find are stone tools, mostly made from flint. It is from these stone tools that archaeologists can trace a cultural development.
Because of its importance let it be pointed out that in a broader sense that the genus Homo had a capacity for technology, which other creatures did not.
Although tools and technology are similar, there is a basic difference. Some animals use exterior objects to their advantage. Some humans might create a unique tool that works very well. However, it is not technology unless it is transmitted culturally. While many animals might use a tool to accomplish something, the Homo was able to create a tool and transmit this information to the next generation of Homos. This ability to transmit information across generations we will call technology.
Most animal transmission is genetic. The mothers of our closest animal friends, the cats and dogs teach their offspring all they need to know in less than a year. The creature, whose biology is most fit for his ecology will most likely breed and transmit this fit gene pool to the next generation. While this type of genetic transmission is active in the evolution of the species Homo, culture itself comes in to lead the process. Many scientists believe that it was culture selecting for memory and the ability to communicate that rapidly transformed the primitive homo habilis into homo sapiens sapiens. Hence cultural transmission because of its connection to selection and thereby genetics assumes an incredible importance for the homo species.
While cultural transmission includes more than just technology, it has always included technology, from the most primitive Homo. While we can only guess about the culture of the early homos, we do know that they transmitted their stone technology from generation to generation for millions of years. Thus, in some ways, the Homo species could be called the technological animal.
Technology is more than the using or making of tools. It is the cultural transmission of tool making. Hence technology is intimately linked to culture. In a similar way, Homo is linked to culture. Originally it was thought that because of man came culture, but it is now realized that because of culture, man. What this acknowledges is that the first Homo had a culture to pass down his tool technology. This tool technology, itself, evolutionarily favored certain homo over others. The homos that survived and propagated were based upon their ability to use the current technology. Over the millions of years, technology based upon culture transmission provided a selection mechanism that was probably significant for the evolution of the Homo species. Inherently culture does not have to include technology. However it is the technology that grants an evolutionary advantage. Hence it is technology that binds cultures together. The art forms or religious manifestations are important cultural glue, but do not necessarily grant an advantage. Cultures that have different manifestations politically and religiously can still be on equal ground if they have similar technology. However, if the technologies are different granting one an advantage, then it tends to be exploited to the disadvantage of the culture with the inferior technology.
We always hope that the morally ‘good’ culture wins out. But, as we shall see time and again, the morality of compassion, cooperation, and treating all peoples with respect has very little to do with cultural survival while technology has everything to do with it, specifically military technology.
In the competition of species for an ecological niche, the more fit survives and the less fit becomes extinct. Fit has a number of meanings. First it can mean the creature that propagates more or is more able to feed himself because of speed or other attributes. This fit is based upon neutral competition. The second type of fit has to do with aggressive competition. Here one species attempts to exterminate all other species competing for the same ecological niche. While the first fit applies to the less sophisticated life forms and was the prevalent form of competition in the beginning, the second fit is prevalent in the more sophisticated predator species.
While the smaller deer may have been able to escape the larger predators by its swiftness and ability to hide, it did not systematically attempt to sabotage the larger deer in order to have the ecosystem all to themselves. This systematic destruction of species in the same ecological niche occurs in certain other animals but is seems to be especially true of the Homo species, as we shall see. This ecological warfare that Homo has waged has served to put him in a dominant position upon the earth, while simultaneously threatening the very eco-system that he has created.
One last point before we move on, cultures tend to hold onto their technology over their beliefs. A few items support this viewpoint. We shall see that the stone age technology was consistent over a diverse geography for hundreds of thousands years. This same stone technology was even spread between subspecies of the homo species. The only way that the technology changed was through improvement to a ‘new and improved’ technology. Furthermore we shall see that the technology would be adapted to fit the environment rather than originating a technology for the environmental. Rarely do we find cultures abandoning an advanced technology unless they have to from environmental necessity. During these long periods of human development we see an incredible diversity of cultural religious expression while seeing a relatively limited range of technological expression. Furthermore while religious conversion is a complicated and uncertain process, technological conversion is almost immediate when possible. Indeed among isolated cultures many times technological superiority is related to cultural superiority, although, as we shall see, technology and morality based upon human rights are almost inversely proportional. In an informal poll it seems that most Americans would rather hold onto their technologies, i.e. cars, TVs, computers and record players, and go to a church, not of their choice, rather than give up their technologies to go to the church of their choice. Finally in the modern times of the 20th century, while religious diversity boggles the mind, our technology of cars, computers, CD players, and TVs is globally consistent. Perhaps the reason for this dichotomy is that technology is morally neutral. Whatever the reason it is easy to see that holding onto our technology is incredibly important to the homo species. Most modern humans feel that technology will save the species from extinction, but one writer has suggested that our survival as a species is dependent upon our ability to let go of our technologies. If so, there is not much hope.
Before moving on to the cultural differentiation of the Mesolithic, let us examine the concept of culture as an organism.
The culture itself attempts to preserve itself. The Being as part of the culture, identifies the life of the culture as more important than his very existence. This is similar to the Wolf Pack where the wolves will sacrifice themselves for the Pack in order to kill the larger elk. One wolf will grab onto the neck of the elk; he grabs on for the rest of his life. In a death grip, he doesn’t let go but is shaken to death by the elk. But the damage is done. The elk bleeds to death feeding the Pack and furthering their survival. The white blood cell has given her life for the larger organism.
We see that humans are similar in their devotion to family, clan, tribe, city, or country. Many men will say that if they didn’t do something to protect their family, their significant others, even if that something risked their own lives that they wouldn’t be able to live with the guilt. Judas Iscariot commits suicide after betraying his friend, Jesus, and subsequently his nascent culture, for money. It is a common theme in literature, the betrayer of family or friends or country drinking themselves to death or otherwise behaving in self-destructive fashion due to guilt. The point here is that the individual is of less worth than the collective, even unto themselves. The Being will regularly sacrifice himself for The Cause, the greater cultural cause. This is a built in universal, cross species, even unto certain insects.
The point being that the larger social structure although not held together by a cell wall behaves as an organism. Built into our deep genetic programming, pre cultural programming, is the idea of sacrifice for the collective organism. In almost every animal species, the individual will sacrifice his own life for the whole. In the humans we have our soldiers, who know that their lives are at risk for the good of the culture. Although there are always personal reasons for joining the army such as potential for fame, glory and excitement, the underlying glory and fame, at least, are based upon the cultural ratification inherent to the preservation of the species. While one tree doesn’t give its life for another tree, one rose doesn’t give its life for another, there are myriad insect and mammal examples where the individual gives itself up for the life of the collective species. Indeed whole sections of an insect or human population will be designated as protectors of the whole, the army. Indeed the adulation that follows this self-sacrifice for the whole is based upon the ratification of behavior that furthers the existence of the organism not the self. Indeed in this sense we are born to serve the collective cultural organism rather than our own individual needs.
Thus while the urge for self-preservation applies to every creature, it eliminates most beings from the creature category and places them within the species itself. The species has a greater drive for self-preservation than does its parts, i.e. the individuals making up the species. In many instances the being will experience self-destruction for the good of the whole, whether bee, or ant, or soldier in the army. And everyone praises you for it. It is good for the Tribe, the Hive, the Pack. Species continuation rates way higher than individual survival for many creatures. However when faced with individual destruction of course the self-preservation instinct can provide the energy needed to survive. But while the urge to survive is dominant on an instantaneous level, it does not preclude putting oneself at risk. The bees attack assured of instant doom once they‘ve lost their stinger. They attack savagely and recklessly until death, kamikaze fighters sacrificing themselves for the Cause.
How noble; how inspiring; how brave. These phrases, indeed these emotions, are there to ensure species preservation, not to ensure personal preservation. Selfish, self-serving, only thinking of himself, are just some of the pejoratives used for those who won’t sacrifice themselves for the Whole. The preservation of species is seen as more important than preservation of self. This is so huge.
In some ways this trait goes back to when animals broke away from plants in the genetic scheme of things. Plants only procreate for preservation. They don’t attack other botanical groups or defend those in the same botanical groups. In the process of evolution creatures first detached themselves from the ground. Many moving things just live and die, living their short lives, with no thought of the collective group, i.e. flies and moths. In the later stages of development evolution found that the group in many cases was more fit than the individual. At this point the group mentality comes to the fore. At this point the group becomes the creature, with its individual members programmed to sacrifice themselves for the group organism. The individual will sacrifice themselves for the whole because of genetic programming rather than noble intentions. While it is easy to inject heroic motives into the wolf or dog, for their sacrifice to the whole, it is a little harder on the insect level to impute these higher motives. While it is hard to talk about insects in terms of brave, loyal, and true, it is easier to talk about pack animals, including humans and the need for species survival. Hence in the same way that insects and other pack animals are genetically programmed for the survival of the Collective over the Individual, so is the human genetically programmed.
This is deep. In terms of our earlier categories of conditioning, this is at the level of pre-cultural early genetic conditioning. The level of genetic programming occurred before we even differentiated into mammals. Our genetic drive to protect the survival of the species over the individual is that deep.
Pure Confucianism would have us accept all layers of cultural and genetic conditioning. Pure Taoism would have us battle all levels of conditioning no matter how deep. Do we really want to battle our feelings of wanting to protect our children from physical harm? Here as elsewhere a balance of the polarity is what we are trying to achieve. This level of genetics is so deep that the best we can do is differentiate it out. Battling it is maybe not what we really want.
In line with Confucianism, we let this early pre-cultural genetic conditioning, buried in the deepest levels of motivation be acknowledged as a motivating force and embraced for species sake. It is hard to give up this level of conditioning that has us sacrifice for our children. Even upon understanding the depth of the motivation, it is still so deep that the Taoist suggestion with all its prestige is questioned rather than challenging this gorge like depth. Suddenly the Being questions Taoism rather than challenging the conditioning.
While still wanting to protect our children, we don’t want to smother them, either. Hence we differentiate these deep genetic emotions to be aware of their distortions. Taoism in perspective tames the battle into a differentiation. Shall I jump onto this horse or let him ride away, resisting my urge to jump on and ride away? Hence balancing the polarity of Confucianism and Taoism is not a blend but a differentiation.
The species preservation urge can manifest at different levels. On the most primary level it has to do with children, then comes spouse, then parents, Possibly then extended family or clan and then finally culture. The purest form is child preservation for species continuation. This is so fundamental that any who challenged it would be called subhuman or barbaric. So let us call the desire to protect our young at all costs pure yang. It is so deep as to be unchallenged causing so much guilt if violated that it would be devastating. Then cultural and temporal conditioning combine to pollute the pure yang with 'fight for your country' to 'protect your wife and children'. To understand the level of genetic conditioning helps to understand the pollution. I.e. fighting in Vietnam won’t really help protect my wife or my children and might get me killed besides further endangering my wife and children.
Another T’ai Chi principle: guard your center and protect your boundaries. This is to be achieved from within your boundaries rather than from without. Hence don’t extend past your boundaries except by expanding your boundaries. The father’s boundaries extend around his family, which sometimes extends beyond to the larger Tribe. Hence sometimes the identity of country and family is accurate, perhaps World War II, after all no man is an island. But great care must be taken when extending the genetic conditioning of child protection, linked to preservation of the species, into national aggression.
For the human, as a collective animal, the survival of the species is more important than individual survival. At this most basic level this manifests as the maternal protection of the young. The male is then roped in to protect mother and child. This is the fundamental triad, which in its union creates the greater whole of family or species generator and preserver.
This unit is then extended into the collective Clan or Tribe. It is at this point that the potential pollution occurs. If differentiation is not strictly maintained confusion occurs. While the fundamental urge is the protection of the young, this has been extended to the protection of the tribe. Now while the protection of the young for the preservation of the species, could easily be linked to the protection of the clan/tribe, it is not necessarily so. Indeed sometimes although the two are linked culturally, they might be mutually exclusive entities. Hence while we have an instinctive need to protect our young, this has been so linked with our tribe that it could easily cause distortions.
While the tribal connection to species is fairly direct and not too ambiguous, the next connection is a major source of confusion. This is the connection of species preservation, through the tribe, to cultural preservation. Now while the survival of the child is of primary importance to the survival of the species, the survival of tribal characteristics or culture may or may not be crucial. Indeed sometimes this identification of cultural survival with species survival can be counterproductive to the progress that might save the tribe.
We see that particularly clearly on the issue of population. Because of our Paleolithic cultural instincts bouncing around our brains, we feel that it is somehow our right and duty to continue to overpopulate the earth. This desire to bear children is counterproductive to survival at this time and yet we desperately hold onto the culture of procreation. Cultural preservation in this case could easily lead to species extinction. There are many similar examples. This is just the major one.
Hence we see that species preservation is linked to cultural preservation. Let us fight to protect our way of life, is a common phrase and rallying cry. Indisputable. Any who speak against our way of life are certainly traitors, cultural traitors who deserve to be imprisoned or put to death. Anything to protect our culture.
This is a major Confucian/Taoist polarity. The Confucian emphasis would be to hang desperately onto the Chinese cultural identity at all costs, for this, they argue, is what preserves social stability. Taoism, on the other pole, warns us to detach ourselves from this very insidious cultural conditioning as an impediment towards the pure manifestation of our pure yang essence. Indeed the Taoist Immortals are beyond cultural conditioning. This is why most Chinese don’t want to become a Taoist immortal.
Indeed this heavy identification of self with culture as an extension of species is a universal human trait. Some of the ramifications are that individuals will regularly sacrifice themselves for their culture in a variety of ways. Another characteristic is that change is resisted as a threat to culture. A further trait is that technology is preserved.
“As prehistory shows, it proceeded slowly enough even in regions most productive of innovation since it was inevitably opposed by the conservative forces whose essential role was to ensure transmission of the cultural heritage which alone distinguished men form the other animals. It is hardly surprising that these forces were strongest where the social inheritance was most exiguous. That is why progress was so extremely slow during the earlier phases of prehistory.”[2]
Hence the instinct for cultural preservation acts a type of thermostat, resisting change but then holding onto them once they have occurred.
Before going on, let it be said that human culture is the human species, but rarely do humans consider themselves a part of the human culture, rather they consider themselves Moslems, Americans, Hindus, Italians or Jews. Indeed most of us belong to the black, white, red, or yellow race. Who of us belongs to the human race?
With this identification of culture and species, culture acquires a life and potential death of its own. As such culture also has the urge to survive. This culture attains more importance than the individual and any individual who threatens the culture is considered evil. Because of Confucianism’s link with the ruling aristocracy they are, of course, behind the urge for cultural preservation. The Taoists, as agents of the underclass, are behind the concepts of social change and revolution. They stress that we shouldn’t hold onto social forms because these forms suppress the under-classes, while the Confucians want to hold onto these forms as they keep their people in power.
In these discussions we’ve seen that humans are subjected to conditioning which is natural. We’ve seen that the Taoists suggest that we align ourselves with the Tao of Nature and resist this natural conditioning. Next some of this ‘natural’ conditioning was revealed. First we attempted to establish that human evolution has been fueled by our ability to transmit culture and technology over generations. Thus we discovered that we have a ‘natural’ need to transmit culturally. Finally we saw that our ‘natural’ genetic need for the preservation of the species transcends our ‘natural’ need for self-preservation. Further we saw that this ‘natural’ urge for species preservation has been transformed into cultural preservation, sometimes for good and sometimes for ill. Now that we isolated some of these ‘natural’ inclinations and seen how important our ‘culture’ is, let us look at how these urges play themselves out in the Cultural Ages that follow.