L.O.V.E.

June 14, 1992

Host: Barbara Thompson ..................................... Invited Guest: Karl Puechl

Barbara: Good Morning! Thanks for joining us again on the Forum and a special thanks to those of you who are letting me know you're listening and talking about some of the faiths and beliefs and the responses you're hearing. It isn't always easy to hear a belief or an opinion that's 365 degrees from our own but --- if we start verbalizing our own opinion or belief, sometimes we realize we're not as clear as we'd like to be on just what that opinion is and what the reasoning behind it. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a good one, only that we haven't thought it through. So when I hear that the Forum is creating some discussion, I think that's good. Especially if we make sure we really listen to what the other person is saying. And then make sure we get our own little gray cells in operation so we can work with food for thought rather than just a lot of meaningless words. And that's why I feel sure you're going to want to listen carefully to our guest this morning because whether you agree or not with his opinions or beliefs, judging by past discussions, I think I can safely promise you'll have plenty of food for thought. So, Karl Puechll, a warm welcome back to the Seekers Forum. And thanks to you for once more representing your fellow members of the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship here in Hemet and San Jacinto.

Karl: Thank you, Barbara. It's a pleasure to be here again with you on the SEEKER'S FORUM. I wish we could do this more often, and for longer than a half-hour.

Barbara: Even though you've described the essence of Unitarian Universalist beliefs during your previous visits, Karl, would you again repeat some of your remarks for the benefit of new listeners and to refresh the memory of listeners who've heard you before.

Karl: Let me try to broaden the description somewhat; by bringing in our relationship to other similar-minded organizations.

It is interesting to me that, over the years, three national organizations have evolved to the point where they really don't differ very much in important aspects. These are the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Ethical Culture Society, and the American Humanist Association. The Unitarian Universalist Association grew out of Protestantism; the Ethical Culture Society out of Judaism, and the American Humanist Association was started primarily by the unchurched who felt a need to develop a philosophical basis for their beliefs. Our local Humanist group, of which I am also a member, recently helped sponsor a national meeting which was held at the Highland Springs conference center up in Beaumont, and the conference was attended by 157 people, about an equal number from each of these three organizations.

All three of these movements can be considered "religious" organizations, or not; depending upon your definition of "religion". Most Unitarian Universalists, Ethical Culturists, or Humanists, consider their affiliate organizations to be religious under their definition of religion which essentially says that: "A religion is a personal philosophy that has great impact on one's behavior and how one interacts with others.--- Through such action and interaction, religion should pave the way for a better life for the individual, for the people that he or she interacts with, and for humanity as a whole."

I point out that this definition of religion is silent relative to any theological or supernatural beliefs. Members of any of these three organizations are free to believe whatever gives them personal comfort in this regard, but most of us just don't feel that a theological belief-system is vital, or even necessary, or desirable.

Now, Barbara, let me elaborate further by trying to answer a very broad question; namely: What is the philosophy that we think will lead to a better life for the individual, for the people he or she interacts with, and for humanity as a whole? I hope that my attempt to answer this question will give our listeners a good feel for what Unitarian Universalism is all about.

1. The first requirement is that a Unitarian-Universalist (or UU, for short) must think for him- or herself with no area of thought being excluded from challenge and exploration. In studying history, we note that cultures have often gone astray by believing in dogmatic principles or charismatic leaders. Relatively recent events reinforce our position that no-holds-barred thinking is an absolute necessity for the survival of the human race. Where did belief in the Emperor as Sun God get the Japanese? Similarly, where did belief in Hitler and his Super Race get the German nation? Prior to World War II, thinking and a little courage, rather than blind acceptance of principles put forth by those in authority, could have saved the lives of millions of individuals and saved most of the world lots of misery.

2. UU's believe that the world is constantly changing, sometimes imperceptibly sometimes rapidly, and that any philosophy, in order to remain pertinent, must similarly change. This flexibility is extremely important when considering positions that should be taken in the sociological arena. Solutions that were valid yesterday, under yesterday's conditions, may aggravate a seemingly identical problem today.

3. UU's recognize that in every area of concern or interest there are people out there who have more experience, more knowledge, or simply have applied greater depth of thought than they themselves have been capable of; accordingly, every UU is an avid reader and listener so as to gain factual knowledge and differing viewpoints to allow for rational decision-making.

4. UU's recognize that things don't always turn out for the better without some action on their part and the part of many other individuals. Accordingly, we are activists, joiners, and doers. Because we recognize that individual actions are necessary to induce change, we also recognize that there must be freedom to act; consequently, we are strong individualists eager to protect our own freedom and the freedom of others. Since we are so individualistic, a UU congregation certainly cannot be characterized as being a "flock".

5. UU's recognize that almost every situation has both positive and negative aspects. And they further recognize that the dichotomies, (or using a philosophical term, the dialectics), usually cannot be resolved by compromise; that what is needed is some creativity, or intuition, or simply open-mindedness to allow assessment in a different light so that seemingly outside and unrelated factors can be brought to bear.

Well, Barbara, I suspect that you are eager for me to end this description of Unitarian Universalism so that we can get on with the topic of L.O.V.E.

Barbara: Fair enough. And thanks, Karl, for giving us some interesting concepts and good background on the "UU" approach. .... Now, Karl, we're continuing with our current series topic of "L.O.V.E." A word which has come almost to be meaningless but I have a question from a listener which asks us to clarify God's love. Karl, I've been asking each of my guests to respond to this question and I think it is going to be particularly interesting to us to learn yours and the "UU" perspective. Here is the listener's entire question: "What is the nature of God's love? For me, it's always been an enigma. Reading the Old Testament, it sounds like He is demanding, vengeful, capricious, encourages war, is divisive and takes sides. Then in the New Testament He calls for Jesus to be crucified. Why? We're still "sinning" as much or more. Odd kind of love. Looking at today's world seems to me it was for nothing."

Karl: This is the type of questioning that led me and others to become Unitarian Universalists. We've come to realize that mythology is cute and interesting, and sometimes even beautiful, but that positive changes in the human condition can only come about by rational human discourse and action.

This broad topic of L.O.V.E. reminds me of Paul Tillich, the Protestant theologian/philosopher, and Professor at Harvard. In many of his sermons and writings, Tillich warned against what he called "two-dimensional thinking". He warned that too often, we, and especially our theologians and our politicians, tackle problems and offer "solutions" when our thinking has only scratched the surface and really hasn't dug deep enough to come to the heart of the problem. The offered solutions, therefore, are not solutions at all but can only provide temporary balm to situations that, as a consequence, will keep on festering. Wasn't this just recently illustrated by the riots in Los Angeles? The politicians, and, since there is lots of blame to go around, let's say, society in general, over the years instituted many so-called "programs" and very few seem to have worked. Could it be because of the "two-dimensional" thinking that was applied to the problems?

Barbara, I've read over the many questions that listeners have asked relative to L.O.V.E. and while each merits an answer specific to the listener's particular personal problem, I believe that in the short time available to cover such a broad topic, I can be of greater help to our listeners by offering some depth (one can say 3-dimensional thinking) to the discussion. To accomplish this, I have to start with something very basic---our genetic makeup; and then I believe that I should provide a simple example before getting to the topic of L.O.V.E. Barbara, are you ready for this temporary diversion from our topic?

Barbara: Karl, please go ahead.

Karl: Mutations occur spontaneously in the genome--the "hereditary substance". These are mainly due to what a physicist would call "thermodynamic fluctuations"---in other words to pure chance. As some of our listeners may know, Darwin's theory was not the first systematic theory of evolution. It was preceded by the theory of Lamarck, which rests entirely on the assumption that characteristics acquired before procreation can be passed on to one's progeny. Unhappily Lamarckism is generally recognized as being wrong. However, behavior can provide nurture for acceptance or rejection of mutational change, and thereby behavior can indirectly influence selection, which leads to what might be called "feigned or pseudo Lamarckism".

Since there are about 100,000 genes in a human cell (which determine who and what we are), a single mutation may, on rare occasions, have large consequences, but usually the changes are relatively minor. However, even though the immediate consequence may be small, most mutations start the organism down a particular irrevocable path of evolution. Even if a subsequent mutation were to occur which reverses the initial mutation, the organism would not end up in its original condition because of intervening mutations of other closely-related genes. Now once on a new path, the organism is somewhat different from the main stream, and this has both positive and negative aspects; or put into other words, every mutation is a "high-risk" occurrence. For example, if a particular mutation produced red hair in a predominantly black-haired society, the red hair would have a number of possible effects for the individual. The effect could be called biologically positive since the red hair might be especially attractive to the opposite sex, and thereby might increase the individual's pleasure and also chances for survival of his novel genetic makeup. However, the effect could also be called negative since the red hair might attract preditors, which could result in the early demise of the individual and the early extinction of the novel genetic makeup. Or, the effect might be doubly negative if it not only attracted preditors but was also considered repulsive by the opposite sex; in which case the tendency for red hair would probably soon be eased out of the gene pool. The mutation, initially, could also be doubly positive but even in this instance it should be noted that the potentially negative aspect is always in the background (as a recessive characteristic if you wish to call it that), and could at times achieve dominance if the environment changed. For example, what might happen to the future of red-haired tendencies in a given locale, if a conflagration (which might be considered to be an unpredictable occurrence and extraneous to the dialectic under discussion) made people associate red hair with uncontrollable fire; i.e., if the cultural attitudes changed so that red hair was thought to be grotesque by the opposite sex? I say again: a mutation such as red-hair, or any mutation for that matter, is a high-risk venture: it could be an immediate flop; it could be very successful initially but, always with the latent possibility for failure;. or it could be successful with there being a continuing closely-fought battle between the positive and the negative aspects. A priori, nature nor anyone nor anything else cannot predict the outcome. However, I contend that the final outcome will not come about through the resolution of the differences between the positive and the negative aspects, as many philosophers believe; I believe that both aspects will continue to exist, with the differences probably widening as further mutations send the "creature" down the path of red hair, fairer skin, freckles, etc.; the polarization will increase until some outside, apparently unrelated force or event, comes into play.

A similar illustration, but a bit more complicated is the series of mutations, that resulted in reproductive ease or high rates of procreation. In general, the capability to reproduce many off-springs is probably advantageous for the survival of the species; in fact, it might be concluded that capability for reproducing at a high exponential rate was probably necessary for the survival of any species when considering the extremely hostile environment that had to be overcome at any particular time. If many more plants or animals than needed had not been produced at all times in the past, the biota without this capability would have succumbed to the environmental conditions and/or to preditors. Survival through most of the time on earth meant survival through profligacy. On the other hand, this also was a high risk venture, and indeed many plants and animals died out just because they had built into their genetic systems the ability to reproduce at a prodigious rate compared to what was necessary in a benign environment. In such a benign environment, trees for example, might drop their acorns and grow so densely that the sunlight would not be able to penetrate the foliage, and further, the root system might so deplete the necessary nourishment in the soil so that the trees would eventually become incapable of further reproduction and would die out. And if the climatic conditions were such, little wind for example, the entire species would die out because it could not migrate or spread. Similarly, with animals. They too might be so prolific that they exhausted their local food supply, and if they too were prevented from migrating because of geographical conditions, surrounding oceans, mountains or deserts, or surrounding preditors, the species could readily become extinct. In fact, even today it is not certain whether the human race will continue to exist and spread because it is so prolific, or whether this prolificacy will eventually lead to its demise because of over-crowding; which can lead to exhaustion of the earth's resources, conflicts over such resources and territory, etc. Can L.O.V.E. survive under such conditions? In short, here too, there is a strong positive feature and a strong negative feature, and, without some apparently extraneous influence (perhaps that which technology can offer) these can be expected to continue to exist side-by-side without any inherent mechanism for reconciliation.

Now, at last, let's consider the human characteristic, love. Initially, there occurred a mutation that sent an early ancestor of the Homo Sapiens species on the path towards the need for increased nurturing; towards a path so that the young, eventually, were incapable of survival without a long period of reliance: on the mother for nourishment and; on the clan for protection and education. This, in itself, was a high risk occurrence. The immature young were always at risk; a toddler might stray from his mother and eat an attractive red berry, only to die of poisoning; or a predator might escape the wary eye of guarding clansmen and carry the baby off somewhere to be eaten. On the positive side, if the young one ever survived to become an adult, it would, compared to other animals, be an extremely knowledgeable adult. It would be in a much better position to deal with and adjust to the vagaries of nature or to better find food, or to better ward off preditors. Again, a strong positive and a strong negative aspect to this particular modification or characteristic. Now, as I mentioned previously, when an organism proceeds down a particular path, for example the path that almost continually increases the post-gestation period of immaturity, the negative and positive aspects of the high-lighted characteristic become more diverse: i.e., they become more polarized. Let's take the case that we are considering all the way up the evolutionary ladder to man. Simply for survival, our young children require the nurturing from the mother and the community; and as a consequence of the mental conditioning resulting therefrom, they will require some degree of nurturing, or love if you will, throughout their lives. The positive aspect of this is that man, throughout life, will require interaction with others and will attempt to find love throughout his life; and since love is a reciprocal relationship, man through this early nurturing has the capability to care for others, and to build a culture. On the other hand, if a young child is deprived of some of this early-required nurturing, of love if you will, she will become what we now call mal-adjusted and will seek excessive amounts of love, perhaps by extreme action throughout her life. Why do we have such phrases as "God is love" or "Jesus loves you"? They were invented to give those who were initially deprived, and later need an inordinate amount of love from others, the chance to be loved vicariously by things which do not exist. Similarly, the need for love, or the need to forget that one is not loved to the extent desired, can result in the use of mind-altering drugs; illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, or legal drugs such as alcohol, or Valium. Similarly, the need for holding on to an object of one's love results in the desire to own something (territory and things, and even a mate or two), and this then breeds jealousy and the need to defend these objects. Even the human inclination for war can be attributed to either a deprivation of early love, or the need for continuing love, or both. Consequently, it can be tersely stated that the human need for love is the mechanism that has produced civilization through the need for nurturing and cooperation; but this need also has within it the negative seeds that can lead to the destruction of the human race. Again, it is simply too early to tell whether the positive or the negative aspects of this characteristic of L.O.V.E. will eventually win out.

Now addressing the questions from our listeners: On a personal level, it is well to realize that these positive and negative aspects are also at work; recognition and, to a degree, acceptance of both can certainly bring peace of mind in seemingly unbearable personal situations and might even point the direction towards a more satisfying life and towards deeper, more harmonious, inter-personal relationships.

Relative to the broader aspects of L.O.V.E., I'd like to be provocative and end this discussion with a few unanswered questions?

Will available technology (the extraneous factor) be applied in time to save mankind from misery and possible extinction due to his prolificacy coupled with his newly-found medical advances?

Man's increasing proficiency with "genetic engineering" will undoubtedly resolve some existing dialectics in a favorable fashion; but will man, with his limited intelligence, introduce greater problems than he is eliminating?

Women undoubtedly have the right to the freedom necessary for self-realization, fulfillment, and happiness; however, since this means that they have less time available for providing the nurturing necessary for the development of psychologically well-adjusted offspring, will our culture find an appropriate balance or mechanism so that society does not end up with either bitter women, mal-adjusted offspring, or both?

Now, my final comment to all of this is a call to action. We must not wait for things to come and situations to improve, believing that all things are decided by an irrescindable destiny. If we want it, we must do something about it. Political and social developments, and the sequence of historical events in general, are not thrust upon us by the spinning of the Fates, but are largely dependent upon our own doing. The destiny of mankind is not to be taken as unalterable; a something decided in advance by some Law of Nature or some Deity. The limits of our actions and their impacts are severely constrained by our current condition and the environment under which we live; however, these constraints are no excuses for inaction, an alternative which surely would result in the demise of L.O.V.E. and, perhaps even in the demise of the species, Homo Sapiens.

Barbara: Karl, we do need more than a half hour for this program. On the other hand, I think you've probably given us about all the food for thought that we can handle at one sitting. So perhaps it's just as well that's our limitation. Thanks so very much for continuing to activate our little gray cells, Karl. And we'll look forward to our next round with you, probably in the fall.