It
is no new revelation that humans are egocentric creatures, and although many of
us prefer to disregard this simple fact with acts of ‘humanity’ and charity
towards genus not our own, it is ultimately the unadorned, primitive truth. I
am not purporting that we ought to cease to care for our environment and other
organisms- in fact if anything we ought to humble ourselves in the knowledge
that our lives are so heavily contingent on mother nature’s provision, on the
very florae and faunae which we so usurp. Nonetheless, it is important to
acknowledge that we like to detach ourselves from other animals, often
erroneously believing that our ability for consciousness eradicates our
primitive nature and civilises us to an inaccessible level. Ironically however,
our greatest strength appears also to be our greatest weakness. Whilst we see
ourselves as being the centre of the cosmos, the top of the food chain and
fighters, second best to none (perhaps this serves as an inbuilt survival
mechanism, in which case I guess we may
be ever so slightly excused), this misplaced sense of supremacy over all,
including oneself and over others, repeatedly causes us to overlook a sovereign
force within our very own physical makeup; the power of the mind. True it is
indeed that a physically healthy body may live for a hundred years, but such
vigour can be cut short by the mind’s instability. The battle of the soul is an age-old contest
and one, which is not unfamiliar to most of us- the mind is so often filled
with caverns of illusions, which the soul readily credits.
Though
the saying goes that your harshest critic is yourself, I do not think that this is
necessarily true (for there exists those who in fact are able to attribute no
perceivable fault to themselves). We are only the harshest critics in so far as
we do not match a peripheral ideal, in which case we are not sincerely
scrutinizing our true selves, but rather merely the fragment image of ourselves
in that particular archetype. In matters such as these I always seem to find
myself regressing to ancient sentiments for counsel, and why not? After all
these issues were just as prevalent in the ancient world as they are now in the
modern, and the chief mistake we make is trying to distance the two. Aristotle
once stated, “I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who
conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.” Fighting the
external enemy does not require one to muster much courage when you really
think about it, but it is forcing oneself to sojourn, reflect and control one’s
volitions in an domestic battle, that is far more exhausting, for eventually it become
a battle from which you cannot flee. It
is this very knowledge of inability to escape, which makes it all the more
harder to face and renders it easy to mislay control over the mind. Returning
further back in time, Socrates’ analogy of the charioteer and the two horses
most famously demonstrates this. The wild horse represents the body’s carnal
lusts (sexual gratification, ravenous appetite etc.) whilst the tame horse is
emblematic of the honourable man who has achieved eudaimonia- the ultimate state of the soul as being contented,
salubrious, prosperous and first and foremost, virtuous. And finally, the charioteer,
who theoretically is meant to control both these horses, symbolises the mind-
or the capacity for reason. The body and its capacities are worth very little
if they cannot be controlled by the mind and though we have the facility and
the choice to allow our mind to control our actions, our bodies and their
desires, it is up to the individual to impose this authority.
The question,
which next arises as we digress further into this discussion, is whether the
unconscious mind is more powerful than the conscious. To define the conscious
mind, would be to associate the part of the brain, which allows us to create
new and original ideas. The unconscious mind on the other hand is a
pre-programmed part of the brain, which is fixed in its behaviour and patterns.
I guess one could say, it is to some extent a kind of ‘computer’- put in crude
terms. It is very easy to implicate the unconscious part of our mind as being
responsible for our actions, especially when scientists suggest that our
subconscious mind is the driving force behind our actions, and the conscious
one merely the messenger. I’m not entirely sure where my own thoughts lie in
regards to this matter, but I think that to ignore the great weight that our
subconscious mind can exercise over our conscious could prove precarious
indeed.
I
feel that I have thus far portrayed the power of the mind as a malevolent
force, when of course; this is not always the case. Undeniably, it is a
powerful force, which at time lies and is deceitful, but it is also a force,
which when controlled and directed, can produce outstanding results. I recently
learnt water divining- it’s a very spiritual and primitive way of allocating
water, a process which takes a lot of mind power to master. I still have a lot of practice to even begin
to call myself half-decent at it, but the process so far has been incredible-
it has really made me question my sense of perception and perhaps deeper than
this, my relationship with my mind. It
has probably been one of the rarer times in my life that I’ve felt completely
in sync with my mind, both of us working towards the same goal of locating
water. And I know that this probably sounds pretty cheesy, but it took
something as simple as that to make me realise how un-reconciled we are
sometimes with our mind, and how much conscious
effort is required to fully connect with it.
A
good friend of mine recommended a book to me, entitled Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.
The book is about customs and traditions of the Igbo tribe in Nigeria and explores how this society is disrupted and destroyed by the British colonialism and Christian missionaries. When reading this book, I came across a concept that has stuck with me since. This notion that each individual has a chi or a personal god in which when the individual says yes, the personal chi also says yes as well. I personally didn’t take this chi figure to be an actual personal god but rather a sort of persona of our mind itself. The relationship we have with our minds is probably one of the strangest and most intimate ones, and the only parallel, which I can seem to draw is that of lovers. The mind knows your strengths and weaknesses the same way in which you know its own and as much as the mind is able to lie to us, so too are we able to coerce it into agreeing with our own beliefs. If you keep telling the mind that something is impossible it will believe it readily.
The book is about customs and traditions of the Igbo tribe in Nigeria and explores how this society is disrupted and destroyed by the British colonialism and Christian missionaries. When reading this book, I came across a concept that has stuck with me since. This notion that each individual has a chi or a personal god in which when the individual says yes, the personal chi also says yes as well. I personally didn’t take this chi figure to be an actual personal god but rather a sort of persona of our mind itself. The relationship we have with our minds is probably one of the strangest and most intimate ones, and the only parallel, which I can seem to draw is that of lovers. The mind knows your strengths and weaknesses the same way in which you know its own and as much as the mind is able to lie to us, so too are we able to coerce it into agreeing with our own beliefs. If you keep telling the mind that something is impossible it will believe it readily.
It
always seems that is moments of great importance language fails to express my
thoughts and seems insufficient to the point of dissension. But anyway, as
Horace once said: dum loquimur, fugerit invida aetas- while we are speaking,
envious time has escaped.
No comments:
Post a Comment