Could it be that Adam and Eve deliberately set themselves up for God to toss them out of the Garden after they ate from the Tree of Knowledge because they were bored with all that perfection, a world without extremes, dichotomies, polar opposites? They couldn't exactly put it into words because the words weren't yet invented, yet they sensed a void, something missing. With their eviction into a new world teeming with contradictions, their lives got much harder, but probably a whole lot more interesting as well. In addition to learning about the difference between good and evil, man and woman, they now also were about to discover:
* hot–cold
* East–West
* religious–secular
* youth-old age
* rich–poor
* beauty–ugliness
* Democrat–Republican
* liberal–conservative
* war–peace
* happiness–unhappiness
* heaven–hell
* guilt–innocence
...and a thousand more this-es versus thats.
Is it possible that the qualities we seek to recapture from Eden–-happiness, beauty, peace, health, goodness--could become destructive if experienced in excess, never tempered by their polar opposites? Would the world really be a better place if there were only beauty and no ugliness, only happiness and never suffering, only peace and never war? Certainly, this is the state of being that many expect to find in heaven. But would it work on earth? Maybe not. Take, for instance, the truism that for physical, mental and spiritual well being, it's better to be an optimist than a pessimist. Aren't optimists happier and pessimists more likely to be depressed? Shouldn't we all want to be optimists?
Half Raw or Half Cooked
It’s hard for me to imagine a world where both these personality types didn’t exist. They are complementary. A world composed entirely of optimists would be completely chaotic and insane–with everyone everywhere actually believing they could accomplish any pie-in-the-sky goal. Hospitals would be overflowing with Evel Knieval inspired broken bodies. Untold millions would spend their last dollar at the craps table, believing with each new toss of the dice that they will be going home millionaires. Optimists would start countless wars for noble causes, always convinced of their superior strength and resolve. They would envision always that wars would be short and that the grateful populace would welcome the "liberators" with flowers.
But on a large scale, without a countervaling energy, the unbridled, unrestrained optimistic cheerfulness permeating human interactions would be toxic, spewing lethal levels of treacly psychic syrup into the atmosphere, ultimately causing all life forms to lapse into fatal diabetic comas or suffocate on gooey sweet air too thick to breathe. Not a pretty way to die.
Equally disastrous would be a world populated entirely by pessimists. Only the most unambitious projects would ever be undertaken, and when (not if) these failed, it wouldn’t surprise anyone because they couldn’t have possibly succeeded in the first place. Innovation would end. People would withdraw into their private thoughts and imaginings, eventually losing the ability to communicate through language. Why should I talk when nobody cares what I say or understands me at all? Cleanliness and bathing would be seen as futile, given the laws of entropy and the inexorable descent into disorganization and dust. In the end, people would stop reproducing completely due to the immorality of bringing children into a world of evil, misery, hatred, and decay. Pessimists are probably more sensitive to moral nuance. With vision not filtered through rose colored glasses, they have the ability to easily recognize the utter depravity that surrounds and engulfs them.
So what do I conclude from all this mind twaddle? That we need both optimists and pessimists for the planet to function at all. And extending that logic I deduce that Democrats need Republicans to be selfish and greedy to reinforce their core Democratic beliefs about social justice and civil rights. Republicans need Democrats to be bleeding heart wusses so they can underscore their Republican core values of rugged self-sufficiency and boot-strap independence. Good and evil are both needed so that we can all measure our deeds on a sliding scale between the extremes.
As long as we cling to divergent ideas about the nature of good and evil, the cycles of war and peace will continue, even though most wars are waged for reasons having nothing to do with these principles. But at least pessimistic reality checking will occasionally temper the optimists' cake-walk visions of short, happy, painless wars.
If everyone were beautiful, the world would be one giant strut and preen Miss America/Mr. Universe contest. But eventually no one would actually feel beautiful because there'd be no measure of non-beauty against which to make comparisons. If we lived our entire lives in a controlled climate of 76 degrees, would that be warm or cool? And finally, even if cloning, artificial wombs, and dynamite virtual (better than the real deal) sex were perfected, would men still need women and vice versa?
YES! Because men depend upon women’s muscle mass inferiority to make them feel physically strong and in control, these qualities being even more valued when the noodle above the shoulders is a little limp. Women depend upon men’s (no matter how much they complain about it) meager talents in recognizing and expressing nuanced feelings and emotions. This provides women with a virtual slam dunk for all the medals in the Relationship Arts category, able to excell in intuitive knowing, empathic listening, and romance novel writing. "Pride and Prejudice" could never have been written by a man, not even a gay man. As long as these profound differences remain in the DNA, men will always have their brotherhoods and women their sisterhoods. And artists, writers, composers and deep thinkers everywhere will draw inspiration from the only really Fun War.
The following cartoons about He versus She are by the most talented Mark Parisi. There are hundreds more, equally clever and insightful, on his website.
From all my own meditations on this subject, and with the added insight of the many cartoons I've perused, I have concluded that a world without opposites, no matter how we may long for it or dream of it, is just not in our best interest. All the saints and do-gooders who have dedicated their lives to eliminating the unwanted opposites--hunger, evil, disease, poverty, war, hatred, intolerance, ugliness, greed, dishonesty--should succeed to some degree, but not too much, lest we all become victims of the unintended consequences of their heroic efforts.
At least until the Final Reckoning, ping must have pong, every ding lusts for dong, riff needs raff, and all yin is in search of yang.
So say I, The Prophet Patti.
