Thursday 24 October 2002

Pic of the day: I cannot decide on a caption for this picture. Is it "fighting the animal nature" or "I bought this game to meet chicks"? I guess the combination kinda sums up my message of the day. (Screenshot Dark Age of Camelot again.)

Instincts - threat or menace?

Not insects, our little 6-legged friends and the most successful group of animals on the planet. No, instincts, the programmed actions performed by most animals more advanced than a jellyfish. (Not sure about the jellyfish.) Strange that humans don't have instincts too, don't you think?

The reason is, I believe, that we are the ones who made language. So we made sure to define instinct in such a way that it does not apply to us. Instead we have on one hand reflexes: Breathing, puking, pulling hand out of fire. On the other hand we have inborn inclinations, to eat and drink and cuddle. These don't compel us against our will, but they reward us with pleasure when we follow them and punish us with discomfort if we ignore them for too long. We suppose that birds building nests don't have a similar choice in the matter; but as long as we like them do what our inborn inclinations tell us, it is rather difficult to say for sure.

How about sleep, for instance? We can resist sleep for a while, but not forever. Is it an instinct? Not really; sleep is sleep, and therefore not an instinct, even if we cannot resist it. Admittedly, instincts are supposed to be actions, while sleep is mostly inaction. So let's go with that for now. So, how about yawning? If you are in a room with various other people, and they start to yawn, one after another, can you resist? Or do you, like me, tend to yawn just by reading about it?

How about young teen girls crowded together and one of them starts to giggle? Teachers seem to believe that the girls can control themselves; but careful observation shows that this is unlikely. Even at the cost of severe embarrassment, a goodly number of them will keep giggling until isolated from their peers. This certainly indicates that there is a giggle instinct. The biological usefulness of this is still a mystery to me, though I suppose it might be somehow connected to reproduction or personal safety. Other studies show that women giggle much more in the presence of men, and that men have a more positive attitude toward women who giggle.

So, if we can control the behavior we are urged to from within, it is not an instinct because it is under conscious control. If we can't control it, it is a reflex, not an instinct. So is defecation a reflex when you have diarrhea, but otherwise a matter of free will? Is eating chips a reflex when you watch TV but not the rest of the day?

***

I have a point. I am coming to it. I believe that we are mostly animals, with a rather small spiritual component. We have to accommodate the animal, otherwise we won't hang around for long. Also constantly battling our carnal nature is wearying, and gives us little or no energy left to actually do anything of our own choice. My female readers probably know how dieting fills the mind with thoughts about food, day and night, and how it becomes difficult to think about anything else. Male readers probably (hopefully) have had similar experiences with their sexuality. For this reason, most people enter into habits where basic urges of the body can be satisfied with some regularity. The idea is to neither spend all day reveling in our instincts, nor spend all day battling them. This way we actually get some time and mental surplus to do something with our human spirit: Art, worship, philosophy.

We have the power to manipulate our instincts, but they also have the power to manipulate us. As long as we deny having instincts, or think of it as a bad thing, we give away some of our bargaining power.

Now my religious readers may ask: "What? Bargain with the flesh? God forbid!" But even such a deeply pious man as the apostle Paul, who talked much about keeping reins on the body and battling the flesh, also urged moderation. He condemned those who preached abstinence from food or from marriage. On the latter topic, he made it clear that not only should people with a strong sex drive marry so as to avoid burning with desire; they should also keep it up after they were married, and not deny each other the body. You don't hear much about that in church, I guess, but it sure sounds like he had the same idea I have: It is very hard to concentrate on spiritual things if you don't have a working agreement with your instincts. Just don't let them fill all your thoughts and all your time.

***

Of course, not all people want to be spiritual. For some, the pleasures of the flesh is the meaning of life itself. While I personally think that's pathetic, it certainly is their choice to make. But even then, there are simply too many urges and drives to satisfy them all. You will still have to make concessions, to give more to one and less to another.

In fact, I agree with C.G. Jung: The spirit makes itself known to the soul as a drive. The urge to create, or even to worship, is a need felt much in the same way as any other internal urge. And like them, it can be sated but will return stronger the more it is exercised. It may even be reasonable to ask whether spirituality itself is an instinct in humans (though, like all instincts, it is stronger in some and weaker in others). After all, each species has instincts that are appropriate for them. Why then should we not have some that are unique to us?