At this
point, Jennifer inquired: "How would the issue of identity fit into your protein
theory of relations? For instance, is identity something that pre-dates, so to speak, the
individual's preference hierarchy and helps shape, color and orient the character of that
hierarchy? Or, is identity something which arises, in a sense, after the fact- that is
after a given preference sequence has become established?
"Stated
slightly differently, does one invent or create identity as a function of the process of
trying to work out a preference hierarchy in the context of day-to-day living? Or, does
one generate a preference hierarchy as a function of one's existing identity - an identity
that one comes to recognize through the process of establishing a preference
hierarchy?"
After a
brief pause, while I had been busy trying to think of how to respond to Jennifer's initial
set of questions, she asked a further question and followed it with a comment. "Does,
or would, your theory allow for the co-existence of two kinds of identity - one identity
which was invented and another identity that was indigenous to the individual? Maybe the
themes which become part of the preference hierarchy are the playing fields through which
invented and indigenous identities vie with one another for control over how preferences
interact in relation to one another, as well as how they are ranked and interpreted by the
individual."
As I
struggled to find an intelligible way of responding to that which had grown to three
questions and one comment, she added an observation. "Of course, I may only be giving
expression to my own inclinations, but of the twenty-plus themes that you listed as
potential candidates for any given preference hierarchy, the only theme that seems capable
of effectively and harmoniously organizing the primary, secondary and tertiary structures
of an individual's preference hierarchy is spirituality."
I replied:
"Well, what about philosophy or science or mythology? These are not among the themes
I listed, but one could learn about them and, then, use their framework to rank, interpret
and dynamically link the various themes of a preference hierarchy. One's sense of purpose,
meaning, valuation and identity might all arise in this fashion."
"Yes,
one could," Jennifer admitted, "but, like religion, to me, they seem to be
imposed from the outside rather than arising from within as I believe is the case with
spirituality. I guess this brings us back to my three questions concerning whether
identity is invented, indigenous, or involves a struggle between the two."
"Couldn't
one argue," I countered, "that reason and understanding arise from within? One
adopts a philosophical, scientific or mythological position on the basis of one's rational
reflection on the available empirical evidence."
"One
possible problem with your suggestion," offered Jennifer, "is that what is
called 'rational reflection' is shaped by assumptions, biases and processes of evaluation
which come from external institutions and social practices. Not only are these
assumptions, and so on, quite arbitrary, on many occasions, but they cannot always be
justified in any rational manner.
"Besides,
for the sake of argument, let's forget about the issues of arbitrariness and
justifiableness in relation to some of the underpinnings of rational reflection. Even
under these circumstances, I'm not convinced rationality, alone, could effectively and
harmoniously organize the primary, secondary and tertiary structures of a single person's
preference hierarchy, let alone the dynamics of the set of preference hierarchies in a
family, neighborhood or society."
"Doesn't
spirituality have its own share of subjectivity problems?" I inquired. "Surely,
one cannot suppose that everything which arises from within is the unadorned truth just
because one slaps the label of 'spirituality' on it."
"Masters
of spirituality or mystics would agree with you completely," Jennifer pointed out.
"They would acknowledge the issue of subjectivity as a major source of problems on
the spiritual path. At the same time, they indicate these problems are resolvable ones. In
fact, one of the purposes of the spiritual or mystical path is to provide the individual
with a methodological means of coming to realize the correct resolution to, among other
things, problems of subjectivity."
Jennifer was
quiet for a moment. She appeared to be preoccupied with some aspect of either her previous
comments concerning my theory or some dimension of that theory on which she had not yet
commented.
Finally, she
said: "The only other thing that occurs to me in relation to your theory, David, is
the somewhat arbitrary number of the twenty-plus themes which you cited earlier. I
understand you are trying to maintain certain parallels with the structure and dynamics of
protein formation and function. Furthermore, I also found the themes you did mention to be
quite interesting selections for the exploration of relationships between, say, women and
men.
"Nevertheless,
from a mystical point of view, there are, at a minimum, at least ninety-nine qualities of
Divinity that are capable of being given manifestation, to varying degrees, through human
beings. The manner in which these themes of Divinity are, let us say, woven together to
give expression to any particular individual might, I think, still fit in with the overall
structure of your theoretical framework, but they would add quite a lot of depth, breadth
and richness to your basic idea."
Although
Jennifer had been ribbing me in a good-natured way throughout my presentation, she had
raised some interesting issues. Despite the fact the protein theory of relationships had
been just a spare-time sort of intellectual diversion for me, nonetheless, I often found
myself tinkering around with the various components of the theory in a semi-serious
manner.
Yet, after
working, on and off, with this idea for a period of time, I was still uncertain whether or
not the theory had something constructive and, potentially, useful to offer. Perhaps, the
whole idea was just another example of how academia, quite frequently, complicates a
matter unnecessarily.
Conceivably,
the theory didn't really have much to offer except, possibly, as a way of visualizing
various aspects of the structure, interpretation and dynamics of relationships. Sometimes,
however, just being able to express a problem in concrete terms helped one to better
understand different dimensions of a problem.
From time to
time, I had toyed with the possibility of using the protein theory of relationships as the
starting point for developing some kind of interpersonal relations or moral education
course that might be used in the public school system. Part of the reason for considering
such an application for my part-time theory was because I wasn't all that impressed with
the theoretical and empirical support for a variety of staged-based and values oriented
programs which were being used by some public school teachers.
Consequently,
I had been trying to come up with a different way of engaging the underlying moral and
psychological issues associated with such programs. The twenty-plus themes of the protein
theory of relationships, although, admittedly, somewhat arbitrary, might be part of the
kind of alternative approach for which I had been looking.
When one
considered the interactive dynamics of the twenty-plus themes of the protein theory of
relationships, together with the issues associated with ranking and interpreting these
themes, one seemed to have the basic materials for some interesting discussions and
lessons involving morality, values, methodology, interpretation, and interpersonal
relations. Even more importantly, such an educational context would not have to be tied to
a single set of theoretical preconceptions about human nature or developmental stages.
In other
words, the twenty-plus themes of the preference hierarchies entail common yet important
conceptual and emotional issues in our day-to-day lives. As such, they constitute a
natural staging area for looking at a variety of approaches to purpose, meaning,
relationships and organizing our lives.
Moreover, I
had a feeling that, to a degree, one might be able to explore these issues independently
of the dogmas of preconceived political, theological or economic positions, and without
necessarily being forced into an empty relativism in the process. Love, trust, creativity,
intimacy, commitment, growth, respect, passion, stability, openness, communication,
compromise, and so on, tended to assume a considerable degree of shared importance in
people's lives irrespective of our philosophies.
Whatever the
ultimate purpose of life might be and irrespective of what the best form of government or
economics might be, and aside from whatever individual views we held in relation to such
matters, we all tended to be preoccupied with the problems and issues given expression
through the twenty-odd themes with which the protein theory of personal relationship was
concerned. In fact, we often are inclined to evaluate the quality of a given political,
economic, theological or philosophical system in terms of the aesthetics of how these
frameworks address, interpret, rank and arrange such themes.
I didn't
know what to make of Jennifer's suggestion about expanding the number of themes from
twenty-plus to ninety-nine or more themes. In principle, I had no objection to the
possibility of adding more themes to the theoretical mix, but, somehow, twenty-plus themes
seemed to be a lot more manageable, at least conceptually, than did ninety-nine-plus
themes.
Perhaps I
would need to get time on someone's Cray computer in an attempt to handle the additional
themes. However, I had serious doubts about whether this would help me very much since
physicists were still having problems dealing with three-and four-body problems.
Trying to
get even the world's most advanced computer to solve problems involving twenty-plus, not
to mention ninety-nine-plus, dimensions, would probably cause a cascade of failures all
along the power grid system for much of the east coast. The up-side of my dilemma was that
I could blame any such blackouts on the alien UFOs that, according to some individuals,
always are hanging out around certain parts of these grids.
In any
event, Jennifer's questions about whether identity was created, indigenous or a struggle
between the two added some potentially valuable features to the educational mix.
Furthermore, the whole problem of whether one's manner of ranking and interpreting the
themes of the preference hierarchy is being imposed from without, or realized from within,
introduced another, interesting wrinkle to matters.
Finally, she
had raised the question of whether there was any best way of organizing, ranking,
interpreting and linking the twenty-plus themes of an individual's preference hierarchy.
Jennifer was inclined toward spirituality as the means to accomplish this in an effective
and harmonious fashion.
However,
philosophy, science or mythology were other possible candidates for injecting purpose,
meaning or orientation into preference hierarchies, as well as into the dynamic manner in
which these hierarchies linked one to other people. Once again, exploring the ways in
which various kinds of meaning and purpose could alter the way one understood and
organized one's preference hierarchy, seemed to have interesting educational implications.
I had
started talking about the protein theory of relationships for several reasons. On the one
hand, I wanted to see what observations and comments Jennifer would make concerning the
theory. The whole idea was still something of a hobby with me, but it was a hobby in which
I had some interest.
On the other
hand, I needed something to help take away some of the anxiety I had been feeling about
being with Jennifer. Explaining the protein theory of development had helped me feel a bit
more at ease with her. This was sort of dumb, I suppose, but I wasn't about to argue with
success, especially when she had been so kind and patient while indulging me throughout
the discussion.
