The Big Picture

The attraction/repulsion dynamic - it’s everywhere and it’s certainly something we can all relate to. We all have things we are attracted to and repelled by. And they are intrinsic. We are not free to choose our attractions and repulsions. Free will comes into play with respect to how we can consciously manage them.

We all have fundamentally similar nervous systems that move us toward certain things and away from others, attracts and repels. First and foremost we are basically concerned with survival. Survival is so automatic, such a given, that, for the most part, we don’t even take notice of it. Our attractions are directed toward that which benefits our survival and we are repelled away from that which threatens it.

We have an attraction to an orderly existence, for example, and that is beneficial to survival. However, one might say here - an orderly existence makes sense and it is for that reason people tend to choose order over disorder. And, yes, our fundamental attractions do make sense. But we make the conscious judgment that they make sense after the fact. We don’t choose to eat food because it makes sense, although it does make sense for us to eat.

Take the action of aforementioned cheetah illustrated in the second post Attraction and Repulsion. We can’t be sure if she reasoned things out in her mind before deciding to go off for food but whether she did or not it was the sensible thing to do. If the cheetah had the mind of a human she would most probably feel that she had reasoned out all the pros and cons and freely decided upon the most logical course of action. But, in actuality, it was the more powerful attraction to food that was the deciding factor. And that was also what made the most sense.

Pursuing an orderly existence makes sense but that conclusion on our part is preceded by an innate attraction to order.

We can certainly see this regarding the opposite case. A disorderly state is one that we feel repulsed by. We don’t decide to feel that way. It’s not a conscious choice. It does, of course, make sense to feel that way but I think we all know that that feeling is not a product of our thinking. We don’t consciously choose to feel that way.

In not having to decide to not have a disorderly state there is no higher mental activity to get in the way of, or co-opt, our feeling of repulsion. Disorder is not something we actively pursue; it’s something we automatically guard against because of the repulsion we feel at disorderly conduct. So, our repulsion to disorder can be more easily recognized purely as a feeling.

On the other hand, we do act on our attraction to order and do make conscious choices on behalf of that attraction in our pursuit of an orderly state. Our attraction to order is consciously pursued. Our consciousness and our unconscious are working in unison and we can get the idea that our consciousness is in charge and leading the way.

But, one may ask here, if we are all so repulsed by a disorderly state then how can something like the Beirut of the 80’s happen, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 90’s or the Iraqi chaos in the first decade of the 21st Century? Such extremely chaotic states are brought about by severe differences with regard to the kind of order that should prevail. The disorder that is caused is for the purpose of establishing some preferred order on the part of different conflicting factions.

Also, those who oppose an oppressive totalitarian state will seek to cause disorder in that state as a means of opposing an unacceptable order with the hope of installing a more acceptable one.

So, that kind of disorder has to do with conflicting pursuits of order.

Fundamentally, though, we all have an attraction to order.

There are other universal attractions and repulsions. We are all attracted to money and repelled by the prospect of being without it. Religion is a great universal attractor, while the notion of our having a merely natural existence is generally repulsive.

Now, the idea that we are all alike in fundamental ways is anathema to those who like to think that we are more individually unique than not. And we can go to extraordinary lengths to promote this idea of our uniqueness.

For example, on a Thanksgiving Day NPR program called Here and Now there was a segment about the foods people choose to eat for comfort. People from all over called in to register their choices. Pasta and dairy were involved in most all of the choices. Macaroni and cheese was a popular dish. But there were differences in preferences about how to prepare it. For instance, one person might like it with breadcrumbs on top and another with chopped olives. And that minor difference was the focus of the final comment of the segment opining that those differences in peoples’ choices proved that we are all totally unique individuals.

The somewhat popular bias toward the notion of our absolute uniqueness, seemingly to the point of denying or ignoring any commonality whatsoever, leaves one to wonder how human beings manage to communicate at all. And one might also wonder how we come to hold such a common belief about our uniqueness, since total uniqueness would prohibit our holding anything in common.

The closing comment on Here and Now reveals the bias as it focuses on the superficial reality and totally ignores the underlying one. The overwhelming common denominator was that people seek comfort in food. Whether it be apples or oranges it comes down to the same thing.

Once on a BBC radio show a man was being interviewed about the loss of his child and he emphatically stated that there could be no shared expressions of grief between him and his wife over the tragedy because what each of them was going through was totally different from the other. Their separate grief for the loss was an absolutely unique experience. Their feelings had nothing in common. Of course, there can be differences in the way grief is manifested between two individuals but to have the idea that there is nothing in common with respect to that, or any other emotion is, to say the least, rather extreme.

The strong bias supporting human uniqueness seems to be a defensive mechanism against our being a product of nature where each and every one of us is informed and instructed from a common template. Total uniqueness cancels out any notion of uniform natural influences.

Of course, the universality of a trait does not totally rule out uniqueness. Certainly, there are differences in the degree of orderliness to which we are attracted. Some are attracted to a strictly ordered state, others to a loosely ordered one while most of us lie somewhere in between. But whether strict, loose or in-between we are all basically attracted to order. That is a characteristic that we all have in common.