Trust

This story I heard as a child. There were Beasts before they were Men who, when their children reached the age of puberty, would throw them into a pit. Those who desperately tried to climb out would be killed. Those who restrained their passion (panic), who trusted that the adults would return for them, were spared. Thus we evolved. Today, when our life can get no worse, and yet it does, we trust (we hope) and we endure.
From an evolutionist point of view our instincts are chemical reactions that have so successfully contributed to our survival that they continue to influence, and often determine, our behavior still today. Their success is so obvious that their continued influence is interpreted as purpose-driven insomuch as they manifest themselves as the drive to survive. This, of course, is linguistically misleading. Chemical reactions do not have volition. They do not occur to accomplish a purpose. They simply do what they do because what they do contributes towards their continuing to do so. The ability to store information allows our body to refine these chemical reactions into responses to our environment that further contribute to our survival, but much of this stored memory is reflexive and not accessible to our conscious behavior. Thus we remain unaware of its influence upon us and tend to interpret the source of our feelings as being outside of ourselves, as a kind of spirit that permeates us. This has led to some interesting, yet deceitful, philosophical speculations.
Relationships are a particular manifestation of this spirit that is not us but is part of us. In relationships we are able to see others as we see ourselves, a kind of projection of ourselves into others. We see this at an early age in what is called mirroring through which, rather than projecting ourselves into others, we incorporate others into ourselves and mirror their behavior. Watching children as they perfectly imitate the behavior of their parent is an amusing example of this behavior. As we grow older and more independent, this mirroring factor of intimacy projects rather than absorbs and, instead of us becoming the other person, the other person becomes us. As a result, we often deceive ourselves by interpreting this feeling of intimacy as a spiritual relationship. We feel a spiritual kinship. Christians might call this feeling of connectedness the Holy Ghost.
Christians are not alone in regarding feelings as an entity. Philosophers have suggested a communal spirit, even a world spirit. Others have suggested a national spirit, an ethnic spirit, even a separate spirit on each of our planets. These entities are harmless diversions and can be useful in simplifying our attempts to communicate feelings to one another, but they can be demonic insomuch as they do not exist and yet can seriously influence human behavior to the point of diminishing our capacity to cope within a friendly environment, thus making that environment unnecessarily hostile. It would be irresponsible of me not to point out that a false sense of detachment from our feelings can contribute to toleration of an actual hostile environment by suggesting hope when there is little or none, and allowing us to endure until some solution to such a difficult situation offers itself.
Returning to relationships, let’s start with a simple one: male and female, sometimes referred to as finding a soul mate (someone who shares one's spirit). There is a tendency to interpret this relationship as being bound together by an entity, a shared spirit, rather than by shared feelings. This awareness of a separate entity can even go so far as assuming such a connecting spirit even when there is no feeling of intimacy, even when there is shared animosity. Such a deceit can contribute to the production of progeny and to the protection thereof, but it can also contribute to the harm of said progeny, and to one another.
When children are born we now have a family, and with it a family spirit is born. This entity ideally represents the bonds of affection between siblings and parents, and can extend even to distant relatives. These bonds are good, but the entity perceived (family) is not necessarily so. Demands and expectations in the name of this entity are often unrealistic, detrimental to all concerned, and not at all based on affection, though that term may be used to justify the demands and expectations. The situation is especially irritating and difficult to resolve because the entity does not really exist.
When families interrelate in societal activities and in commerce, we have a community, and with the birth of a community a communal spirit is born. Cooperating in peaceful activities is good, and communal bonds contribute to the enjoyment of shared activity, but the entity, called the communal spirit, is not necessarily a good thing. In the name of this communal entity individuals are expendable for the perceived good of the community. Though this may be justified in extreme cases, the entity called the communal spirit can make it an all too convenient solution to even the most trivial of travails.
Cities, states, nations all have their spirit entities. Though they do not in fact exist as actual entities, they are treated as such and often even viewed as such. When something that does not exist is treated as if it does exist, there is the danger of valuing the nonexistent entity more than actual living beings. This cannot be good. It corrupts the mind and it diminishes the ability of real beings to survive if the entities that do not exist cease to exist. Oops! If you reread that last sentence, you will see the difficulty in discussing nonliving entities. It is difficult to accept, even to realize, that they do not exist.
The choice we face is one of trust. Who and/or what do we trust? Who and/or what should we trust? Our continued survival depends on trusting someone and/or something. Our instinct is to be suspicious, but as we are domesticated (civilized) more and more, we tend to trust more and more indiscriminately. Our social instinct combined with our natural deference to superior force (that which can kill us or protect us at its discretion) often blinds us to the fact that nonexistent entities cannot, in and of themselves, either harm or protect us. They can, however, absolve us of restraints imposed upon us by our natural association with others, thus justifying cruelty and unbridled harshness in our behavior towards each other while under the influence of such a nonexistent entity given authority over our behavior by our emotional response to having named the entity (imparting upon it a pretend reality), originally for convenience but ultimately dominating our behavior because, since it does not exist, we cannot touch it (we have no power over it) simply because it does not exist.
Just as we should be more careful trusting people, no matter how domesticated (civilized) we may be, so too should we be more careful in subjugating ourselves to institutions. We should definitely not think of an association, an institution, or an idea as actually existing.