- Email: [email protected]
Man's worst enemy: Himself
.I. &on.
Dis. 1964, Vol. 17, pp. 885-887. Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
Edi torial MAN’S WORST ENEMY:
HIMSELF
abhors imbalance and rejects excesses. The ecological view emphasizes this basic tendency to maintain a dynamic equilibrium capable of resisting serious distortions of biological relationships ranging from invasion by a new predator species to ‘fevers of nature’ such as earthquakes and tornadoes. The same principle, transferred from the collective ecology of the universe to the solipsistic ecology of the body, we term homeostasis. Even a most superficial contact with physiology inspires marvel at the countless compensatory mechanisms operating to maintain health in man. One can also make a case for the survival value of dynamic equilibrium at the behavioral level. The ancient Greeks believed that the gods endowed each human being with the potential for good and ill, and that the forces acting in the drama of life pulled the personality, now in one direction, now in another. The cartoon (Fig. 1) symbolizes two contrasting patterns in which self-interest is weighed in the balance against consideration of the interests of others. The classic figures appear in Leonard von Matt’s book on Ancient Sicily. The seated lady was found in Grammichele. It is attributed to the end of the 6th century B.C. NATURE
E SI 0
OSI
FIG. 1. Balance between of others (E SI 0).
own self-interest (0 SI) and empathy for self-interest From Ancient Sicily published by Universe Books Inc., New York (LEONARD VON MAP, photographer). 885
886
LOUIS LASAGNA and DAVID SEEQAI.
The figure of the man appears on a bowl from Lipari. It is believed to represent a “scene of everyday life, but with an obviously comical and satirical side.” Homeostasis of the personality is highly achieved in the individual whose position on the seesaw is nicely balanced between the forces of one’s own self-interest and that of others. It may be surmised that a person so endowed would manifest sensible, well-tempered qualities as a spouse and parent. Such a good citizen’s day-by-day productiveness would not be continually interrupted by profitless and extravagant emotional displays, and it might be guessed that he would be an effective participant in the development of community activities. He could generally be counted on to act fairly in disputed political and social situations, and would be a fine fellow on a camping trip or in a foxhole. In contrast, the dyshomeostatic individual is bound in his strait-jacket of unreasonable, over-weighted self-interest. He is easily seduced by opportunities to take advantage of his business associates and neighbors; he tries to outwit the orderly queue; and he rationalizes these types of aggressiveness by stating that his opponents will otherwise try to ‘get the better of him.’ This attitude projects small hope for warm human relationships. The observers of this dyshomeostatic man conclude that his enlarged egotistical spots will rarely contract even if, through craftiness or psychological assistance, he develops a veneer of consideration for others. Disappointment is often in store for those who try to convince him that giving is more rewarding than taking; they will learn that his stigmata of hypertrophied self-interest defy the most vigorous scrubbing. Let is be emphasized that homeostatic balance is not equated with inertia, apathy, or the absence of vigor, and that it is not the intent of this commentary to denigrate the self. Man could not long survive without a healthy bump of self-interest. In its absence, guiding an autombile around the Arc de Triomphe would be inevitably disastrous, rather than a calculated risk. Self-interest is a normal attribute of man and is essential for his existence, growth, and meaningful association with other members of the human race. However, it cannot be viewed as an isolated quality: it must be evaluated as it competes with and challenges the self-interest of others. Many thoughtful men have expressed the opinion that he who manifests empathy for the reasonably acquisitive demands of others is acting wisely in his own selfinterest, and will receive ample proof that bread cast upon the waters will return many fold. This is a difficult maxim for much of mankind to accept. Too many individuals are their own worst enemies because of an inability to comprehend that the homeostatic principle of an equilibrium between give and take is a sine qua non for full membership in human society. Many case histories could be cited indicating that each individual’s homeostatic pattern of personality will determine his success or failure and the number of hours of his existence he will spend in Freude or cum Freud. For example, a common problem of man is to equate his ambitions and goals to his abilities. These qualities separately are of limited value; ability without a drive towards fulfillment breeds sterility, and aggressive ambition without accompanying ability often leads to disappointment and frustration. A reasonably equilibrated accommodation between ability and ambition is a mark of emotional maturity and an earnest of optimal homeostatic design. It may be argued that examples exist of unbridled selfishness and malignant
Editorial
887
aggrandizement which paid off in worldly gain. Yet it seems easier to think of individuals whose ultimate fate illustrated the long range dangers of the dyshomeostatic approach; Adolf Hitler, Joseph McCarthy, Savonarola might all qualify for charter membership in the Comeuppance School of History. As Whitehorn has put it: “Human beings lead interpenetrating lives; they live in and for each other, by give and take . . . made . . . possible by . . . feelings of mutual value to each other.” In a larger setting it is evident that the devil’s horn has attained dominance as collective man teeters in dyshomeostatic equilibrium between war and peace. A disquieting article by Lieutenant Colonel Fielding Lewis Greaves in the New York Times (April 14, 1963, p. 16) indicates that national bellicosity has not diminished significantly in the modern era. He reports that : “Since 3600 B.C. there have been 14,351 wars, great and small, and in all the centuries of recorded history the world has known only 292 years of peace.” National self-interest and aggressiveness are so predominant that rational mechanisms, such as the common man’s longing for peaceful solutions, form only a small term in the homeostatic equation. It has been particularly difficult to contain national aggressiveness because the same violent thoughts and actions that might be branded objectionable in the individual, and of potential harm to himself as well as to others, are transmuted into respectable. nay admirable, acts when ‘sublimated’ into patriotism. It has been said that violence is inborn and that wars, even if pathological, are inevitable. Today, however, such statements deserve especial scrutiny. For we now have the capacity to engage in global nuclear war-an exquisite madness, a national psychopathy of unprecedented scope. (Someone has even coined the ghastly surrealism abbreviated as ‘E.O.E.’ : the stockpile of atomic weapons which if exploded could achieve the ‘end of earth.‘) For the first time, therefore, one can argue against war as a process which is without question dyshomeostatic for all who partake in it. Peace, by contrast. becomes increasingly attractive because it provides advantages to both sides who choose it in preference to bilateral extermination. Here is the ultimate potential for man to be either his own worst enemy or his own best friend, depending on his ability to achieve a dynamic equilibrium with his fellows. Man has conquered much of his environment, has bridled organisms and microorganisms inimical to his welfare. Can he master himself? In approaching the goal of emotional homeostasis, we might do well to heed the words of Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But, if I am only for myself, what am I?” LOUIS LASAGNA DAVID SEEGAL
Dis. 1964, Vol. 17, pp. 885-887. Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britain
Edi torial MAN’S WORST ENEMY:
HIMSELF
abhors imbalance and rejects excesses. The ecological view emphasizes this basic tendency to maintain a dynamic equilibrium capable of resisting serious distortions of biological relationships ranging from invasion by a new predator species to ‘fevers of nature’ such as earthquakes and tornadoes. The same principle, transferred from the collective ecology of the universe to the solipsistic ecology of the body, we term homeostasis. Even a most superficial contact with physiology inspires marvel at the countless compensatory mechanisms operating to maintain health in man. One can also make a case for the survival value of dynamic equilibrium at the behavioral level. The ancient Greeks believed that the gods endowed each human being with the potential for good and ill, and that the forces acting in the drama of life pulled the personality, now in one direction, now in another. The cartoon (Fig. 1) symbolizes two contrasting patterns in which self-interest is weighed in the balance against consideration of the interests of others. The classic figures appear in Leonard von Matt’s book on Ancient Sicily. The seated lady was found in Grammichele. It is attributed to the end of the 6th century B.C. NATURE
E SI 0
OSI
FIG. 1. Balance between of others (E SI 0).
own self-interest (0 SI) and empathy for self-interest From Ancient Sicily published by Universe Books Inc., New York (LEONARD VON MAP, photographer). 885
886
LOUIS LASAGNA and DAVID SEEQAI.
The figure of the man appears on a bowl from Lipari. It is believed to represent a “scene of everyday life, but with an obviously comical and satirical side.” Homeostasis of the personality is highly achieved in the individual whose position on the seesaw is nicely balanced between the forces of one’s own self-interest and that of others. It may be surmised that a person so endowed would manifest sensible, well-tempered qualities as a spouse and parent. Such a good citizen’s day-by-day productiveness would not be continually interrupted by profitless and extravagant emotional displays, and it might be guessed that he would be an effective participant in the development of community activities. He could generally be counted on to act fairly in disputed political and social situations, and would be a fine fellow on a camping trip or in a foxhole. In contrast, the dyshomeostatic individual is bound in his strait-jacket of unreasonable, over-weighted self-interest. He is easily seduced by opportunities to take advantage of his business associates and neighbors; he tries to outwit the orderly queue; and he rationalizes these types of aggressiveness by stating that his opponents will otherwise try to ‘get the better of him.’ This attitude projects small hope for warm human relationships. The observers of this dyshomeostatic man conclude that his enlarged egotistical spots will rarely contract even if, through craftiness or psychological assistance, he develops a veneer of consideration for others. Disappointment is often in store for those who try to convince him that giving is more rewarding than taking; they will learn that his stigmata of hypertrophied self-interest defy the most vigorous scrubbing. Let is be emphasized that homeostatic balance is not equated with inertia, apathy, or the absence of vigor, and that it is not the intent of this commentary to denigrate the self. Man could not long survive without a healthy bump of self-interest. In its absence, guiding an autombile around the Arc de Triomphe would be inevitably disastrous, rather than a calculated risk. Self-interest is a normal attribute of man and is essential for his existence, growth, and meaningful association with other members of the human race. However, it cannot be viewed as an isolated quality: it must be evaluated as it competes with and challenges the self-interest of others. Many thoughtful men have expressed the opinion that he who manifests empathy for the reasonably acquisitive demands of others is acting wisely in his own selfinterest, and will receive ample proof that bread cast upon the waters will return many fold. This is a difficult maxim for much of mankind to accept. Too many individuals are their own worst enemies because of an inability to comprehend that the homeostatic principle of an equilibrium between give and take is a sine qua non for full membership in human society. Many case histories could be cited indicating that each individual’s homeostatic pattern of personality will determine his success or failure and the number of hours of his existence he will spend in Freude or cum Freud. For example, a common problem of man is to equate his ambitions and goals to his abilities. These qualities separately are of limited value; ability without a drive towards fulfillment breeds sterility, and aggressive ambition without accompanying ability often leads to disappointment and frustration. A reasonably equilibrated accommodation between ability and ambition is a mark of emotional maturity and an earnest of optimal homeostatic design. It may be argued that examples exist of unbridled selfishness and malignant
Editorial
887
aggrandizement which paid off in worldly gain. Yet it seems easier to think of individuals whose ultimate fate illustrated the long range dangers of the dyshomeostatic approach; Adolf Hitler, Joseph McCarthy, Savonarola might all qualify for charter membership in the Comeuppance School of History. As Whitehorn has put it: “Human beings lead interpenetrating lives; they live in and for each other, by give and take . . . made . . . possible by . . . feelings of mutual value to each other.” In a larger setting it is evident that the devil’s horn has attained dominance as collective man teeters in dyshomeostatic equilibrium between war and peace. A disquieting article by Lieutenant Colonel Fielding Lewis Greaves in the New York Times (April 14, 1963, p. 16) indicates that national bellicosity has not diminished significantly in the modern era. He reports that : “Since 3600 B.C. there have been 14,351 wars, great and small, and in all the centuries of recorded history the world has known only 292 years of peace.” National self-interest and aggressiveness are so predominant that rational mechanisms, such as the common man’s longing for peaceful solutions, form only a small term in the homeostatic equation. It has been particularly difficult to contain national aggressiveness because the same violent thoughts and actions that might be branded objectionable in the individual, and of potential harm to himself as well as to others, are transmuted into respectable. nay admirable, acts when ‘sublimated’ into patriotism. It has been said that violence is inborn and that wars, even if pathological, are inevitable. Today, however, such statements deserve especial scrutiny. For we now have the capacity to engage in global nuclear war-an exquisite madness, a national psychopathy of unprecedented scope. (Someone has even coined the ghastly surrealism abbreviated as ‘E.O.E.’ : the stockpile of atomic weapons which if exploded could achieve the ‘end of earth.‘) For the first time, therefore, one can argue against war as a process which is without question dyshomeostatic for all who partake in it. Peace, by contrast. becomes increasingly attractive because it provides advantages to both sides who choose it in preference to bilateral extermination. Here is the ultimate potential for man to be either his own worst enemy or his own best friend, depending on his ability to achieve a dynamic equilibrium with his fellows. Man has conquered much of his environment, has bridled organisms and microorganisms inimical to his welfare. Can he master himself? In approaching the goal of emotional homeostasis, we might do well to heed the words of Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But, if I am only for myself, what am I?” LOUIS LASAGNA DAVID SEEGAL