iam of the belief that humans are not progressing and evolving as fast as we should becuase of oour falsely held cultural myths.. until we change these cultural myths we will continue to evolve at a painstakingly slow pace..the first cultrual myth is that humans are inherently evil. this is the myth of ORIGINAL SIN..it holds that not only is our basic nature evil, we were born that way.( will make a thread about origainal sin later)

what i want us to talk about though is a cultural myth arrisng out of the first cultural myth( waht i call the second cultural myth), is that it is the “fittest” who survive...This second myth holds that some of us are strong and some of us are weak, and that to survive, you have to be one of the strong. You will do all that you can to help your fellow man, but if and when it comes down to our own survival, we will take care of ourself first. we will even let others die. Indeed, we will go further than that. If one thinks he/she has to, in order for him/her and theirs to survive, he/she will actually kill others, presumably, the “weak” thereby defining them(the killer) as the “fittest.”

we say that, that is the basic instinct. the “survival instinct,” and this cultural myth has formed much of our societal ethic, creating many of humanities behaviors.

Yet when you look at things critically our “basic instinct” is not survival, but rather, fairness, oneness, and love. This is the basic instinct of all sentient beings everywhere. It is our cellular memory. It is our inherent nature. if fairnes, oneness and love is our basic intinct then our fist cultural myth which gave birth to our second cultural myth cannot be and is not true. if the parent is false then the child outomatically falls apart when critically examinined..humans are not basically evil, and were not born in “original sin.”

If humans “basic instinct” was “survival,” and if their basic nature was “evil,” you would never, say for instance move instinctively to save a child from falling, a man from drowning, or anyone from anything. And yet, when you act on your basic instincts and display your basic nature, and don’t think about what you are doing, this is exactly how you behave, even at your own peril.


humanity's current cultrual myths have not served us. it has not taken us to where we say we want to go..it is time to change them.

but my question to you guys is, is the survival instinct really our basic instint as you have been made to believe..

greatgenius: iam of the belief that humans are not progressing and evolving as fast as we should becuase of oour falsely held cultural myths.. until we change these cultural myths we will continue to evolve at a painstakingly slow pace..the first cultrual myth is that humans are inherently evil. this is the myth of ORIGINAL SIN..it holds that not only is our basic nature evil, we were born that way.( will make a thread about origainal sin later)

what i want us to talk about though is a cultural myth arrisng out of the first cultural myth( waht i call the second cultural myth), is that it is the “fittest” who survive...This second myth holds that some of us are strong and some of us are weak, and that to survive, you have to be one of the strong. You will do all that you can to help your fellow man, but if and when it comes down to our own survival, we will take care of ourself first. we will even let others die. Indeed, we will go further than that. If one thinks he/she has to, in order for him/her and theirs to survive, he/she will actually kill others, presumably, the “weak” thereby defining them(the killer) as the “fittest.”

we say that, that is the basic instinct. the “survival instinct,” and this cultural myth has formed much of our societal ethic, creating many of humanities behaviors.

Yet when you look at things critically our “basic instinct” is not survival, but rather, fairness, oneness, and love. This is the basic instinct of all sentient beings everywhere. It is our cellular memory. It is our inherent nature. if fairnes, oneness and love is our basic intinct then our fist cultural myth which gave birth to our second cultural myth cannot be and is not true. if the parent is false then the child outomatically falls apart when critically examinined..humans are not basically evil, and were not born in “original sin.”

If humans “basic instinct” was “survival,” and if their basic nature was “evil,” you would never, say for instance move instinctively to save a child from falling, a man from drowning, or anyone from anything. And yet, when you act on your basic instincts and display your basic nature, and don’t think about what you are doing, this is exactly how you behave, even at your own peril.


humanity's current cultrual myths have not served us. it has not taken us to where we say we want to go..it is time to change them.

but my question to you guys is, is the survival instinct really our basic instint as you have been made to believe..

Brilliant!

Your article makes very interesting reading, and one might be inclined to nod in agreement without even meaning to. However, if the subject matter is considered with a more critical eye, one might say that the idea is rather starry-eyed. This is especially true of what you call the second cultural myth.

It is difficult to see how man's primary instinct leans towards oneness, fairness and love. If you want a glimpse of man's basic instinct you need look no farther than at a child. This perspective ought to give you an idea:

Babies are the most tyrannical, selfish, and downright awful creatures in the world. Does that shock you? It shouldn’t. They know nothing but their own selfishness until they are taught otherwise.
Toddlers are even worse. If they
are not taught to share toys they will scream and beat each other with the toys. We are not charged for our fathers’ sins, but we do carry enough of our own.

There's some other quote i'd have liked to share but can't find right now. It describes in disturbing detail the savagery that is an infant's natural inclination. You may also find R. L. Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde very interesting, if you haven't already read it. The book provides a profound (and chilling) insight into the original nature of man.

I agree completely that the more humane feelings like love and sacrifice ought to be given priority, but to argue that such a disposition is inborn would be to contradict primeval evidence.

It is particularly strange that you extend this theory of intrinsic altruism to other 'sentient' beings, unless of course you mean to specifically exclude lower animals. Because when a young lion gobbles up a gazelle, i don't think it is because the lion wants to attain oneness with it.

All the same, you have yourself a beautiful and thought-provoking article.