From Part II Chapter 9 Strive To Evolve or Struggle to Survive
By T.L. Dayen
The male ego image of reality is firmly buttressed on the false premise that the ‘human condition’ is by ‘natural order,’ patterned after the animal kingdom. One can see countless trace and direct comparisons made between the animal kingdom and mankind in psychology, sociology, religion, and anthropology. And you will notice that these comparisons are used almost exclusively when studying human ‘male and female’ behavior! It is true, that human kind at some point early in our ‘evolution’ turned to nature to better understand its own existence and collective relation-ship. Artistic, philosophical or poetic comparisons between humanity itself and the ‘natural’ world from which we evolved, within which we exist, and that we rely upon to survive is uniquely human. But an omnipresent collective consciousness of reverse-anthropomorphism (human is animal) is crippling our ability to fully realize collective ‘human’ consciousness!
Animals DO NOT contemplate their own existence! The male ego, none-the-less, continues to successfully perpetuate the fallacy that humans are simply a more ‘evolved’ state of ‘animal.’ First, this false premise accomplishes two things: 1) It permits the human male to argue ‘male dominance’ as the ‘natural order’ as modeled by nature; and 2) It provides the male ego animal mind with a cloak of un-accountability to its destruction and apathy (i.e. our “animal instincts”). Second, this premise cannot account for or explain why the ‘animal kingdom’ is egalitarian, while mankind is brutally exploitative; a convenient exception. This persistent erroneous comparison is not animal mind itself, as it’s explained in chapter three, but it is a corner stone of the image of reality that the animal mind of the male ego perpetuates to maintain the image of male superiority.
It’s Not Personal
We’ve talked about the difference between the animal brains reactive instinct, and the human minds deductive will. Only one is hardwired for nothing more than survival. It’s not ‘personal’ for the animal kingdom, only the collective instinct of each species! Each species instinctively seeks out that which supports its survival and reacts to that which threatens it. And in the ‘wild’ animal kingdom, survival expressly requires survival of the species. All activity, function, habits and characteristics of each species is exclusively dedicated to that end. Animals are not ‘personally’ attached to their food stores and habitats. Animals are egalitarian. Only what is needed is taken or utilized, and if an environment ceases to provide what is needed for just basic survival, a new one will be sought out or it (they) will die. They are not ‘personal’ with one another. They are relational. The nature of their relations is determined by the survival instincts of each species. They are not capable of ‘choosing options’ of behavior, dominant or otherwise, other than those afforded by the particular survival instincts unique to each species.
The terms ‘apathy’ or ‘empathy’ cannot apply to the animal kingdom. While some species appear to mourn the loss of a ‘member’ of a unit, the death of the old, the young, the sick or the weak, is an otherwise necessary course in the survival of the whole. These are often abandoned (even eaten) as an instinctive response for that same purpose. Are predators ‘evil’ and herbivores ‘kind?’ Are herd or pack animals ‘friendly’ and lone species ‘unsociable?’ Do animals seek revenge, plot, scheme, make war, murder, steal or exploit for ‘personal’ gain? The animal brain is instinctive. Only mind is ‘personal!’ If animal brain were personal, the animal kingdom devours itself, and its symbiotic cycles of sustenance and survival rapidly implode. The ‘natural order’ ceases to exist.
Animals Don’t Have “Sex”
Second only to violence, the human animal metaphor enables animal mind to justify sexual control of the human female. The animal kingdom follows an instinct to pro-create – period! There is only ONE sexual comparison that can be made between animals and humans – the biology to pro-create. Any comparisons made beyond that are purely allegorical. I would go further to say that comparisons between the ‘mating habits’ of animals and those of humans are ignorant and even offensive. Yet this ‘sexual’ comparison is planted firmly in our subconscious as the explanatory model for human sexual and relational behavior; specifically, the dominant male and the submissive female. It also underpins the image of the female as a vassal of reproduction by natural order. Those of us who see the absurdity and perniciousness of this fallacy are considered social deviants; ideological aberrations of the natural order.
Once again, animal behavior, including sexual, is instinctive reaction and response of the animal brain. Male and female ‘roles’ in the natural world are not stratified as you and I would define it. What we label as ‘dominant’ or ‘submissive’ animal behavior is not qualified as such by the animal brain. Male and female roles and behaviors in the animal kingdom are instinctive and specific to each entire species. They are not individually chosen, agreed upon, negotiated, liked or disliked. They are not considered better or worse; good or bad. They are not different for one group in one place and another group in another place within the same species. They are void of culture, politics, religion, ethnicity, race or economics. The roles and behaviors of the male and female of each species are exact and complete, and have evolved in direct correlation to the survival of the entire species – period. It’s not personal. Animals are not having ‘sex.’ Animals are not romantic, passionate, promiscuous or frigid. They are not perverted or provincial. Animals do not cheat, molest or rape. Animals do not have casual sex or ‘plan’ a family. Animals are not “sexual predators.”
The human animal metaphor sustains the animal mind image of reality and enables the male ego to continue its epic campaign of destruction and sexual control into perpetuity. As long as humanity considers itself “animal,” it will be plagued with the affliction of the male ego within the static animal mind image of reality! The truth is, “animal mind” is simply a personal or individually motivated animal brain. A personally motivated animal brain without the presence of human ‘mind’ is a beast driven by static unwavering instincts [decrees] that serve its own interests with no regard for the collective [human] species and void of compassion, cooperation, compromise and community. The renowned French writer philosopher Malcolm deChazal, once said “Monkeys are superior to men in this: When a monkey looks into a mirror, he sees a monkey.”