The Cogito: The Mantis in doubt
[This
post is part rant part figuring-out- life. It imparts some strong personal
views vis-à-vis my own experiences in the wild or otherwise, and are not
intended to be imposed upon the reader.]
Cogito
ergo sum; I think, therefore I am; is a philosophical
argument first made in 1637 by René Descartes. Simply put, to doubt one-self’s
existence is to exist. It is said to be philosophy’s keystone from which one
dives into the swirling thoughts of existence and nonexistence, of truth and lies.
But if you think you exist, and therefore
exist, you must also think others exist, but they may or may not indeed exist,
for that thought is only applicable for yourself. If every person thinks the
same, you could, like them, may or may not exist. With all its beautiful fallacies,
the thought alone is enough to push you onto the next level of self-realization:
that we all exist. And once you’re here, and you believe you exist, and so do
others, self-realization is not only about yourself or your own kind; it is
about realizing that your mere thinking affects others as other’s affects you.
I compare the quality of self-realization
to a commodity; not all of us possess it (but we can if we will). History has
shown that all the greatest people said to be self-aware were those with little
or no material commodity, their gift was their ability to question their
existence, and share, not trade, the faith to others. To think of a poor man as
the greatest philosopher therefore for me is more plausible than a generous
rich man in his seat of leather. For the poor man has a greater chance of
understanding the worth of leather not in death but life than the rich man who
has already made his decision. And if you’re confusing a philosopher with an
entrepreneur, you’re looking at not a philosopher but a professor of philosophy
(Thoreau, Walden): a philosopher need not be right all the time but be
universally true. And the only universal truth, as I have come to learn, is
nature.
It is our inherent nature to impart
knowledge than share it, and it has brought us closer to books more than it has
to our everyday life learning: the rich text of Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Quran, or
the knowledge of the tribal communities, our forefathers, was no mere book-derived
content but a long process of their tryst with nature, of trial-and-error,
until they got their knowledge together to build up an Index for the book
contents we read through.
What sets man apart from other living
things is that we learn from our nurturer more than from nature. The debate I
raise is have our genes become far too weak to be the powerful storehouse
of information they once were, as they still are for over 99% of all living
things in this world. Perhaps it makes us one of the very few species capable
of retrospection. But does it really make us self-aware?
I know of a Dung Beetle which always flies
around with his bulk hanging perpendicular to the ground (he is that heavy in
the middle), and would always crash-land on his back, exhausted (and drunk?)
and probably on the verge of fainting. Then one of us would flip him upon his
legs, and he would make a loud chirping sound expressing annoyance. Remember
anyone? Or that moth, which, with a hundred feet falling all around her, and
even after nudging her to get up and fly to some other place, only flutters in
discontent and rests in the exact same spot.
This beetle has evolved over millions of
years not to crash-land all the time. If you take a look at its feet, you will see
that it is hard and hooked, which belongs to the moist earth of monsoon – they
emerge in this particular season and are one of the best adapted to it. With
their head as a shovel, their strong feet their helm, they are capable of
digging and carrying weight beyond imagination. But this beetle on polished
stone has no support to cling its feet onto to get back up – it is hopelessly
flailing its legs, and soon it would fall prey without a little push.
Similarly, the moth that doesn’t budge is not suicidal, it evolved to sit
freely on the forest floor releasing pheromones before some invasive species
trampled it, or its car ran over it.
They evolved so in content and at peace
with their natural surroundings. Who is man to question their pretentious
dumbness in an element in which they were never evolved to belong? Philosophy
of old religions teaches us that it is not man alone who is capable of self-realization.
Religions around the world recognize the respect for other life sharing this
planet with us. The Quran says, “Allah will not give mercy to anyone, except
those who give mercy to other creatures” (Prophet Muhammad).
A
farmer knows an earthworm as his friend, but a wild boar his foe; but hardly
does he know that every animal on this planet is neither his friend nor his
foe, but he makes them so, for his needs are his own, as the needs of the
animals are their own. Barely does he know that merely killing it will not
resolve his problem.
I am of a belief that an animal damages crop,
or kills livestock, simply because it follows the rather basic law of nature.
Having said that, laws which protect crime of some kind, which if you see from
the eyes of basic laws of nature may be quite natural – such as felling trees,
is a law to curb the menace of one of man’s most prominent sin. A lion kills
one zebra of the entire herd, eliminating the weakest genes, than wiping out
the entire herd at once. The tree feller here is well aware of his needs, but
not self-aware.
Experiments have shown that very few
animals are able to recognize their own mirror image – and these experiences
are proof enough that the animal is self-aware, or is it? Although I do not
refute this simple theory which is quite credible – self-awareness is beyond recognizing
yourself in mirror, in fact, it is so basic that we never really heed it.
That an ant can think is a joke for many. I’m
of the opinion that every individual insect is an insect in its own right;
knows what it is in its own right; indeed every ant we technically consider to
be a carbon-copy of her sister – is not a mere clone, for we wouldn’t see
individuals or a group of them prying about their own business rather than
strictly sticking to where the colony was. Their business might be of the
benefit to the colony, but that ant is unique in itself for no other ant took
the lead to investigate that place before. Curiosity, perhaps, is a gift to
every living organism on this planet. It makes one push their limits, explore,
learn; evolve. I’ve seen worker ants of Leptogenys
processionalis acting as guards for a trail of workers shifting nests – no
body put them there, whether they volunteered it with thought or instinct, I do
not know. I’ve seen a Major Worker of Camponotus compressus with the
head of another Camponotus sp. clinging onto its fore-limb, and that
Worker attacked a Queen Ant, probably of another colony, and killed her. Then
the Worker went about her business around the veranda, with the dead weight of
the dead head dragging with her. This war hero was not to be seen on the next
day, but the Queen Ant that lay dead was being escorted to the grave by
hardworking Worker Ants of Pratrechina longicornis.
The tree fellers or the farmers I met
recently deep inside a nature reserve are the victims of the demands from human society. An ant, on
the other hand, is a member of the requirements
of an ant society. Do you see the difference? Do you blame the farmer or the
tree feller alone? Or do you blame the society we live in?
Do you then believe that the ant is a rather primitive form of life than man?
Unlike humans, self-awareness for an animal
comes not from recognizing its reflection, but from the very basic idea that it
needs to care for his self and others, to survive. That motherly care amongst living
organisms is a mere genotypic trait naturally selected from millions of
generations might be true, but it has remained so because it was eventually
recognized to be the best trait to possess. I am unsure of the ratio of how
much a non-human learns via nurture than via nature, but behaviour of an animal
is largely its instinct and whatever little it has learnt in its lifetime which
it can remember, for instance deer rely on Langur because Langur can alarm them
of the approaching tiger which they can see from atop the trees; whereas
personality (in its current usage) is a trait of pure human-origin, for
instance the laidback attitude towards life for an animal perhaps does not
exist, nor does the “kingly” gait of a lion, but can be imposed upon some of
them because it is a human trait (and we’re very familiar with it).
In my little experience in nature, I’ve
come across animals from insects to large mammals, each with their own
individuality. There are some which are completely intolerant at first, but
then come to tolerate you. I cannot explain why this is so, because literature
tells me their brains are too weak for long-term memory. But I believe, without
concrete evidence however, that they can process a plethora of facts about what
can harm them and what cannot without having to experience it. Some call it
fear, but fear is a raw emotion which I consider to be true in extreme cases
only.
To live is not the virtue of mankind
alone, to prosper is not the virtue of mankind alone – it is an emotion in
possession of plants and animals. On this planet of complex interactions,
moments such as a crèche of Flamingos where guardian adults lead the adopted
chicks to safer grounds, of leopard adopting a deer fawn, a dog adopting a
litter of tiger, are instances of no marvel but the highlights that deep down,
every organism on this planet follows the very basic law of nature which are
far above that of the relationship of a friend or a foe.
Perhaps animals recognize these basic facts
more easily than man. Perhaps a deer knows that it must run to survive, share
the space with langurs, or fall prey to a tiger – this is the simple fate
without an if or a maybe. And man, who of all the animals
is free of its genetic reign, is a rather volatile living organism which not
only defines its own but the fate of every other animal. The scheme set up
today what Quinn calls Takers is so firmly imprinted on our consciousness that
the original scheme of nature remains undiscovered for majority of Earth’s
population. And that gives us unprecedented power of mindless destruction.
But wait.
“I have amazing news for you. Man is not alone on this planet. He is a part
of a community, upon which he depends absolutely. Have you ever had any
suspicions to that effect?” Ishmael, Ishmael
by Daniel Quinn (Pp. 99).
Brilliant.
ReplyDelete