HUMANS
IN THE WORLD: INTRODUCTION
TO RADICAL PERSPECTIVISM
HUMANS
IN THE WORLD: INTRODUCTION
TO RADICAL PERSPECTIVISM
Other Chapters:
Alexander Makedon
Chicago State University
Copyright © 1992
MASTERY Posted Jan. 4, 2001
|
There are basically two types of "mastery." One type implies conquest, as in the conquest of a people by another that results in the former becoming masters to the latter; or the mastery over nature that results from harnessing natural forces to human will. The second type of mastery is based on human skill alone, instead of a hierarchical relationship, as in the mastery achieved by a master athlete who plays with "obstacles" in his or her environment (as in the case of an acrobat who "plays" with the high beam). In this latter type of mastery, human interaction with the "other" is based on a presumption of equality, as in a game of skill where all participants obey the same rules, or commence a foot race starting at the same starting line. Participants are rewarded based on their skillful manipulation of environmental forces that result in their overcoming obstacles, without destroying such "obstacles" to make it easier for them to win, thus allowing for yet another race, or, for that matter, for the continued "existence" or survival of other world parts. By contrast to this type of "mastery," the other type is often destructive, since it is often based on unplayfully destroying obstacles, be they other humans or other world parts, or changing them to make it easier for humans to "control" their environment.
Humans and the world are involved in a cosmic game where "winners" of even the most presumably "serious" games are not taken more seriously than are either winners or losers in children's games. Like a player who enjoys his participation in a game only because he has allowed the other to challenge him as an equal, so are humans "master" as they allow their-world to test their ability to interpret and reconstruct it without destroying its possibilities.
If humans try not only to survive physically in the world, but beyond survival also to master or control it, just for the sake of making themselves feel "masters of the world," then they are no longer playing with the world, but instead turn the world into a subjugable play-thing. In this destructive "game" humans fool themselves into believing that they are superior to the world, when in fact they are no more superior, than they are indestructible.
Every time humans attempt to master or control the world, in the sense of trying to impose only their own sense of "world" on the non-human world, they actually master it less. This is so because by excluding from the world its non-human possibilities, they end up with less of a world to master (and therefore with less world-mastery).
Humans are not only incapable of mastering the world, but can't exist even if they do succeed in mastering it completely. This is so because, assuming by mastery is meant taking over nature for human use, as they eliminate the world's possibilities, they also eliminate their own possibilities for survival. For example, by leveling down forests to build cities, they may be eliminating the world's possibilities of ever again reproducing that forest, or the oxygen, or any number of nutrients, which humans need to survive.
Humans often use their thinking capacity to build machines with which to cultivate the land, convert natural resources to energy for human use, or engage in production, all of which, if carelessly done, may destroy the natural habitat of other species. Eventually, they destroy enough of the other, to put their own existence in danger. Like fish in a water bowl, so are humans no more independent of their environment, and just as easily perishable.
The world is "unmasterable," in the sense that it cannot be mastered without also slipping away. Goals that humans have are not really theirs to impose, since they cannot be devoid of the non-human context that make such goals "human." In the end, by imposing only their self-centered interpretation of world possibilities, or by denying the possibilities of other world parts, humans deny their own. Humans and the world are so interdependent that human survival is inevitably tied to the attitude humans have toward the world, and therefore their learning how to world their approach to "mastery."
Humans create their own paradise as they learn how to live in the world cooperatively in the midst of its possibilities; or their own "hell" by destroying those possibilities which give them life.
The radical perspectivist learns how to overcome natural difficulties to his survival without destroying the world. His "mastery" doesn't cause "serious" or irreparable harm to the world, meaning, the destruction of its possibilities. In human terms, non-destructive mastery leaves animate and inanimate life intact. The difference between destructive and non-destructive "mastery" may be illustrated through an analogy to bullfighting. Thus while today bullfighting usually ends up in the death of the animal's death, which signifies total domination by one world part over another, in ancient Crete bullfighters, or, more correctly, bullplayers, didn't kill the animal, but instead played with it acrobatically. Their acrobatic play over the animal's back without getting hurt signified their ability to overcome natural obstacles without totally dominating or destroying nature. In fact, both human and animal were the better for their contest, as they came out possibly stronger and more skilled, as opposed to totally eliminating the animal (in which case the "winner" not only misses the opportunity ever to play with the same animal again, but also signifies his inability to coexist with non-human world-parts, and therefore really to survive).
Finally, non-destructive mastery tends to give each party a fair chance at mastering certain skills, as opposed to making it almost impossible for one or the other party to keep improving his or her or its skills. For example, in modern bullfighting, the human doesn't dare face the bull by himself alone without his human-made tools, in a "naked-like" fashion, but instead uses swords and other human-made tools to kill the bull. The bull is not faced as a bull, but as a discardable plaything to be subjugated or destroyed. To the extent that the bull is denied its fair play as a bull, it is treated unfairly for the purpose of controlling or "mastering" it, in the destructive sense of mastery.
Like the fair treatment of the bull in ancient Crete, where the animal was given a chance to display its skills without humans having an unfair advantage by using human-made tools to kill the bull, so in relations among humans, as they learn to improve their skills, as opposed to conquering or destroying perceived "obstacles," they also learn how to be fair. For example, imagine what the Olympic Games might be like if wealthier players used their wealth as a "tool" with which to bribe judges so they favor such wealthier players even in spite of such athletes' lower level of athletic skill; or certain players bringing with them guns or other "tools" to kill or maim their opponents? If we find that type of "mastery" unfair at sport events, such as, maiming an opponent instead of competing fairly without harming him, then why should we tolerate such behavior when it comes to a similar type interplay between humans and non-humans (such as, bullfighting, or, for that matter, all other types of interaction between humans and non-human world parts)? Why should we use tools with which to injure or kill a bull, instead of just showing our skills vis-a-vis a bull's tremendous physical strength, thus also displaying our tremendous courage or skill, as did ancient Cretan bullfighters? If we argue that part of being human is also the human ability to use tools, and therefore humans can rightly use the tools they developed in their interplay with other animals (or, by extension, other parts of nature), then why not also argue that part of being a wealthy human is using one's wealth, and therefore wealthier humans can legitimately use their wealth to influence sport outcomes? Finally, if we don't think that such "extraneous" tools as wealth or guns should be allowed at human contests of skill, then doesn't it make sense that we shouldn't allow such tools in contests of skill between humans and non-humans?
The survival value of non-destructive mastery is illustrated through its effect on the improvement of participant skills; while, by contrast, destructive mastery leads possibly to human suicide, as is modern warfare, where there is the possibility of a nuclear holocaust.
To conclude, in the playful, non-destructive type of skill-display mastery, the closest humans come to "mastering" the world is when they allow it to be itself in their inter-play with such world.
Return to the
Top
|
Since March 6,2006
page has been visited ...
Teak Bench |
Academic Home Page
|
