Cain and Abel (Good and Evil)

Adam and Eve were, from Paradise, thrown into a world outside of themselves, no longer an illusion so much as a delusion. They were forced to interpret a world that acted on (formed) them and demanded that they act upon (form) it. Into this world they threw parts of themselves and from those parts three boys were assembled, Cain and Abel and Seth. (There were probably girls too, but apparently they were not important enough to the point of this mythological interpretation of the beginning of civilization to be mentioned.)
Seth (the foundation) is, mythologically, the real precursor of the future of mankind. Cain (the point) and Abel (the pointless) are more representative of man's propensities.
Abel became part of the world, insomuch as he formed it to serve his needs. He was a farmer changing the earth's natural random casting of seeds by guiding said seeds towards his fields, that he might cultivate and harvest their fruit. He worked hard from morning to night for what he got. He saw no need to share the largesse he was responsible for with a God who, in his view, did not share his labor. He was Apollonian, a modifier of the shape of worldly things, a thinker and planner, bound by a kind of communal living. Cain was the opposite. He acted within the world. He was not really a part of it. He was a hunter and a shepherd. He sought not so much to change the world as to take advantage of its abundance. In other words, he took what he wanted when he wanted it and gave to God generously in appreciation for such largesse. He was Dionysian, impulsive, emotional, intuitive, free, an individual.
Thus Adam and Eve brought into this world good and evil, Cain and Abel. We still haven't figured out which was the good one and which the evil one though.
Abel sought to bind Cain to a communal life, to civilize (domesticate) him. Cain would not give up his freedom. Besides, he saw Abel as bound to the land, selfish and self-serving, a grower of seeds, not willing to sacrifice any significant portion of his produce to a god who made the growing of plants possible. And Cain could not walk away from such an insult (insinuating Abel's way of life was better than his when it was obviously not) to God and to himself. Abel was a perceived threat to his way of life. He killed Abel.
This would seem to suggest that Cain was evil and Abel good, but put yourself in Cain's shoes. He was feral (free) and consequently more adapted as an individual to survive. Abel suggested Cain submit to the responsibilities of organized repetitive labor, submitting himself to the demands of communal activity. Cain's honor was violated. He was being asked to be something he was not. Of course he was outraged.
Was Abel then the culprit? Was he the evil one? Put yourself in Abel's shoes. He was offering Cain an opportunity. As an individual, Cain was the stronger, the more likely to survive as an individual, but a community offers protection, predictability, and social intercourse. In other words, it weakens the individual, but gives him an opportunity to devote time to something other than survival. While Abel would plant, cultivate, and care for his crops, Cain would, without contributing anything to the growing of the produce, take the fruits of Abel's labor and loose his sheep upon Abel's property whenever he wanted. (Cain saw nothing wrong with this. He was a predator [a free man, unbound by obligation] and the fruit was the prey. And what was this property thing? To own animals domesticated by your own efforts and weapons of your own construction was one thing, but land was something else entirely. How could one claim land? Only God could claim the earth.) Of course Abel was outraged.
Cain was a predator, however, and thus the stronger, more adept at physical violence, and more likely to resort to violence. In his eyes Abel was weak, and by protecting what he perceived as prey, became prey himself. Cain pounced.
The Apollonian (civilized) man is a weaker individual than the Dionysian (wild) man, but as a member of a community the Apollonian man has the advantage of concerted effort of more than one, and Cain was forced to flee for his life. He could only kill the individual, not the collective might of many.
Let's philosophize.
We are Dionysian souls in Apollonian bodies. Our awareness is of an Apollonian world seen darkly through Dionysian proclivity. As Dionysian we are our emotional appetites (intuitive reactions [instincts]) developed over millions, even billions, of years in which our primeval ancestors were endowed with behavior patterns that proved successful enough to guarantee their survival over their less favorably endowed peers). The Apollonian world into which we were born shaped those appetites (instincts) because this Apollonian world is form and it demands form (shape [parameters of both behavior and physical characteristics, predictability]) if we are to be part of it.
As Dionysian, we inject substance (unpredictable emotional purpose and direction), into this otherwise purposeless and pointless Apollonian world in which our awareness projects itself. In other words, the world outside us shapes our otherwise shapeless inner self into a purpose-driven entity, while the world inside (which is really us) offers emotional impetus to shaping what is not us. In the language of philosophers, the world thus has form and substance (the substance being us).
Let's talk about our Apollonian nature and ourselves as communal (farmers, creators, nurturers). We could call this Apollonian nature "Praxis." Praxis originally meant in ancient Greek "action with a purpose." More recently it has meant (loosely) "learning by doing." In philosophy it has come to mean "the overwhelming effect our environment has in determining how we see ourselves." According to the Praxis view, when we were hunters and gatherers we thought of ourselves as earthly creatures no different from other living (even non-living) entities, during the Industrial Revolution we defined ourselves as mechanical contrivances, and today during the Information Era we view ourselves primarily as computational creatures.
The Praxis approach to human perspective can be useful insomuch as it simplifies our complexity, but it can also be detrimental to our destiny when we take it seriously, so seriously in fact that we attempt to wrap our reality around it in order to assure a better future. Religion is primarily Dionysian, and as such introduced the idea that we are flawed but can be perfected through submission and confession. Communism, whose dogma is based on the prophesies of Karl Marx, combined this potential for perfection with the Praxis view of human nature. By doing so it introduced this Dionysian concept of perfection (guilt) into a Praxis solution (changing [perfecting] the environment [state] to change [perfect] the citizens of this perfected state). The Dionysian drive (religion) is strong within us, so much so that Communism quickly became a religion and sought to establish itself as the only true religion (as other religions have been prone to do). Communism, however, replaced God with Heaven (a perfect world).
One method of perfecting our religious community is to reject (avoid, and ultimately eliminate [exterminate]) those not perfectible and guide those who are left toward utopia (Heaven). Another is (assuming that all people are perfectible over time and under the right circumstances and assuming that Praxis is indeed a possibility) perfecting our environment to eventually perfect us.
Logically then (from the viewpoint of those of us who are sufficiently domesticated [civilized]), the perfect state would be a communist state in which neighbor cared for neighbor, not just emotionally but physically also. Since previous environments have corrupted the perfectible human spirit so completely, many would find a perfect state unbearable. Consequently, a dictatorship would initially be necessary, and those who opposed such a necessity would need to be eliminated (for the good of the present participants and future generations, of course). To begin such a grandiose experiment, a state would be needed. Since most states are already taken, a revolution in at least one of them would be necessary, and since people are inured so deeply in their present imperfect state and have such unpleasant memories of dictatorships in the past, a future dictatorship would have to be presented as being under their control (though in fact it would not be) and if they would not buy that, as "for their own good." Thus we establish the "dictatorship of the proletariat (people)." It would have been more accurate to call it the "dictatorship for the proletariat" but that removes the feeling of control that justifies the immediate establishment of such a government.
Another attempt to establish a utopian state based on Praxis, but with the assumption that the majority of people are already perfect, is democracy. A democracy (not communism) is actually the "dictatorship of the people (proletariat)" insomuch as the majority dictates to the minority. America has been pretty much shielded from this actuality by its Bill of Rights which protects minorities from some of the excesses of a majority dictatorship. It also helps when the state is a republic based on democratic principles rather than a true democracy.
It does appear, however, that neither Communism nor Democracy is a workable form of governance. In some cases, small communities have survived and flourished under both communist and democratic leadership, but once community size grows beyond communal intimacy, coercion becomes necessary if the community is to survive, and so Communism and Democracy are exploited and ultimately forgotten (die). The natural heir to their demise, apparently, becomes a dictatorship. Consequently communism becomes an excuse for a continuing dictatorship rather than the promised perfected society, and democracy becomes a republic struggling to keep its head above water as its adhesion to democratic principles pulls it under. Interestingly, this struggle between autocracy and democracy seems to contribute to a republic continuing to grow stronger and more successful as it adapts to the demands of an active citizenry and strengthens its ties to their democratic principles. Time will tell.
I should point out that Communism is not the first (nor will it be the last) religion to attempt to establish a utopian state and thus a perfect people. Worshipping one's potentate (though unacceptably brutal by today's standards) has proven extremely successful. Pagan dictatorships were also impressively successful, as was the Christian control of monarchs quite recently. Even today, religious sects continue to exert themselves towards creating a perfect people in what they perceive as an imperfect world (or at least creating people acceptable in the eyes of a perfect God).
To be fair, the real reason communism and democracy are not effective forms of government is that, despite protestations from the religious community, people are neither perfect nor perfectible. Praxis (though very successful in selling products by exciting our basic emotions [fear, greed, hatred, etc.]) cannot perfect us simply because we are not, nor do we become, mere reflections of our environment. Praxis is useful if not taken too seriously but, like so many things, it can be obsessive and as such destructive, sometimes on a massive scale. Communism is a good example of the consequences of obsession. It made a huge mistake when it declared that Capitalism was evil and must be wiped from the face of the earth through revolution. Suddenly capitalism (a means of commerce) became Capitalism (the entity driven by greed) and it rose as a behemoth against what appeared to be its natural enemy.
The adherents of Democracy have been more circumspect, and consequently Democracy is still a powerful force among us. Insomuch as it advocates respect for minorities, it is productive. When, however, it becomes so overwhelming that it blinds us to its shortcomings and creates the impression that it is the governing force in our lives and the perfect and pure way to guarantee an honest and effective government, it is no better than Communism; it has become a religion. Replacing the American Electoral College (which allows states to choose their President) with a democratic direct election of a people's President, would be a good example of such an obsession and of Democracy as a religious (Dionysian) entity.
In a way, the development of hostility towards Communism and other forms of socialistic governance is a shame and is an indication that Capitalism too can become a religion. Keeping religion separate from the governing of the state (including the religions of Communism, Capitalism, and Democracy) contributes to effective governance. Capitalism and socialistic agendas have shown themselves as adaptable one to the other. The danger of Capitalism is its tendency to produce first an aristocracy and then an oligarchy. The danger of communism and democracy (socialistic societies) is that they both result in dictatorships and, as religions, all of them (Capitalism, Communism, and Democracy) are intolerant of those who would challenge their basic assumptions. They do not share control (especially Communism with Capitalism and Democracy with autocracy.
I do not intend to demean dictatorships as viable forms of governance, because they have proven to be more effective, more efficient, and more lasting than any more recent form of government. The problem is that it is really difficult to replace an incompetent and/or corrupt dictator with one more worthy. The success of a republic, on the other hand, is predicated on the judgment of its citizens and their representatives being equal to the task of guaranteeing an honest, efficient, effective, peaceful, and continuing government. This, of course, tends to overlook the human condition; we are not naturally honest, we question just about everything (which is good, but does not contribute to efficiency), and our very being is based on our will to survive (expressed in times of security as a determination to dominate [making a peaceful environment at best unpredictable]). Just how long a republic will endure is yet to be determined. It will have to last several more centuries to outlast dictatorships.
At this point I need to remind you that the previous paragraph (mythologically speaking, of course, since there are obviously several paragraphs which I have bundled together for the purpose of this reference) is pure mythology. It has merit only if you do not take it too seriously. Having said that, let's move on to something really outrageous.
Having discussed Praxis (the Apollonian -- form, predictability), let's talk about the human condition (Dionysian -- us [sinful, unpredictable, emotional, free, the hunter]). We'll call this Dionysian self "Freedom."
Freedom is all too often merely an assumption of entitlement. We honestly believe we are entitled to be free. We are not. Freedom has been won over many years and at the cost of much sacrifice, including lives lost, in its achievement and in its protection. There are some who are willing still to sacrifice their time, their riches, even their own safety, convenience, and life for the freedom of others. Unfortunately the more freedom we have the less we are willing to defend it for others and the more likely we are to demand it to excess as entitlement to our own (though we seem to honestly believe we are defending the rights of others) preferential treatment (actually at the expense of the rights of those we claim to be defending).
When seatbelts in cars were first introduced, some drivers removed them (cut them off with razor blades) and others simply refused to wear them, claiming their right to free choice. The argument is a sound one from a Dionysian perspective, insomuch as an individual has the right to make stupid decisions, but from an Apollonian perspective the safety (and even the lives) of those near and dear to the person making those stupid decisions are in jeopardy when they do not have access to, or are persuaded not to use, seat belts. Coercion (laws) was thus instituted, requiring those given access to public streets, highways, and freeways to protect themselves against themselves (their Dionysian proclivities).
A more defensive example of Apollonian coercion is the banning of treadless tires on freeways. Even though the law clearly prevented accidents from occurring because of a driver's inability to brake effectively on slick surfaces, our Dionysian self (our Freedom) was violated (or so our feelings led us to believe). So much for individual consequences of Freedom (Dionysian expectations).
Let's move on to collective consequences and at the same time create a kind of modern mythology to better portray the Cain and Abel myth in our everyday life, to stimulate strong opposing emotions based not really on whether the myth (tale) is true or not, but based on a bias previously incorporated into our being (radio and television and Internet commentators over the past ten years come to mind as having perfected this art of myth making). It should illicit a strong emotional reaction, either a resounding "Yes!" (a justification for one's hostility) or an every bit as passionate "No!" (outrage at such an unjustified accusation). The point of the story, the thing that makes it mythological, is less obvious and not readily discernable unless the impact is strong enough and the individual reading the story so surprised, so taken off balance, that a sense of humor kicks in (the rationale is so serious it cannot be taken seriously). Laughter, and then the exclamation, "You can't be serious!"
You're right.
I can't be.
Remember Cain and Abel and prepare for a mythological moment. The truth or falsity of the following, seemingly brilliant, historical analysis is not the point.
During the Vietnam War there was a rising up of those opposed to an unjustified (so they claimed) war (police action on foreign soil). This protest (though justified from an Apollonian viewpoint if the war was an emotional reaction rather than a rational response to a perceived threat), became the vehicle (with some encouragement from the Democratic Party) for a movement against all war, and consequently against the drafting of citizens to fight the war. As a result, the draft was abolished. As a consequence (unforeseen consequence, collateral damage), today we depend increasingly on a mercenary militia to protect us. The problem with mercenaries is that they serve for monetary gain rather than patriotic principles (protecting families and friends [as draftees or volunteers in a regular army do]) and, because mercenaries are paid so much more than the country's regular army, many who might have made a career in the regular army (usually those who are most proficient) join the militia believing they are still serving their country as patriots, but with better pay. Over time their priorities may change and their loyalties shift from their country to their mercenary leaders.
The question one must ask is, "Are these militia members indeed patriots?" What happens when their services are no longer needed or when they become too expensive to maintain? What happens if groups hostile to their parent country offer more, or if their country can no longer support them in the style to which they have become accustomed? In fact, since mercenaries are hired primarily for their skill rather than their loyalties, how many of our mercenaries are American? This is what the so-called "hippie movement" has spawned.
There is a comparable "hippie movement" today. Just like the previous one, it has centered on one goal that was not the original intent. The "hippie movement" of the 1960's could not end the Vietnam War and may very well have extended it, but it did (by seeking a single goal as a solution to the problem it could not successfully resolve [end the draft and give birth to our mercenary militia]) succeed in resolving a problem that was not really a problem. The current "hippie movement" seems caught in a very similar situation.
The "Tea Party" protest began with integrity, as did the protest against the Vietnam War and, just as the Democratic Party absorbed the protest against the Vietnam War, so is the Republican Party attempting to do in the current situation. The Democratic Party took advantage of the outrage against the war, picking a single issue on which that anger could be projected, and so has the Republican Party taken advantage of the outrage against our crashed economy, picking a single issue on which that outrage could be projected. For the Democratic Party that single issue was the draft; for the Republican Party it is the removal of our present president. At this point the "Tea Party" protest became the "tea baggers," a 21st Century repetition of the 20th Century "hippie" fiasco. The consequences have not yet been determined, but since (just like its twin fifty years ago) the present protest is Dionysian, it may bode ill for an Apollonian (rational) future.
And so Cain (Dionysian, Freedom [feral], the hunter [predator]) and Abel (Apollonian, Civilized [domesticated], the farmer [prey]) continue their struggle. The natural consequence of this struggle would seem to be the death of Abel (the present structure) and the success of Cain (the destroyer with little thought of future repercussions). The Bible does not treat Cain's triumph kindly. Abel is not resurrected, but historically (mythologically speaking), no matter how often Cain (Freedom) kills his brother, Abel (Civilization) is resurrected (restructures chaos [limits freedom]), thrives and multiplies, while Cain is condemned to wander around the perimeter of this civilized society inflicting occasional pain and injury, which quickly heal, making Abel stronger and more resilient to future attacks.
Cain lives among us as us (some more Cain than others). Though we are domesticated, we are never completely tamed. If we are submissive, we choose to be so (whether we realize it or not). Though we are feral, we are family (we do not eat our young) and as we extend our emotional (family) connections, we continually reevaluate our definition of, and our right to, "personal freedom" at the expense of the freedom of others.