If there is one thing each living entity believes, it is the belief in it’s own power – whether consciously or subconsciously.
From birth, one learns to “manipulate” and “interact” with its surroundings. The first things one recognizes is what one can control, and what one cannot. On top of that, what one can feel, versus what one cannot feel.
By natural design, one would then come to realize that the “thing” which is physically closest to “us”(as in perception), which can be manipulated and felt at the same time repeatably and with full control by using “will”, differentiates an identity of “self” from that not-of-self. This forms the instinctive idea of identity by its measure against space, power and sensations.
Building up upon this are other layers of ideas about “self” by distinguishing from other cultures, ages, shapes and forms, social status, states of emotion, measures of intelligence, etc.
Thus also by finding others within the same category in some of these layers brings a sense of closeness to the self, such that one feels at ease. And why not, since they are separated by fewer layers of distinguishing ideas.
The assumption of identity as measured against all these layers of differentiation is an interesting hypothesis. We can talk about the effects of each different layer in different contexts, but I would like to focus on the natural association of identity with “power”.
Where most of us are brought up having to learn to be “independent”, to work for “ourself”, it indirectly imposes upon the person needing to assume a “persona”. The need to resolve conflict puts one in a position to draw up the intuitive response – either by instinct or memory – by assumption of a learned or a new persona for dealing with the situation. The former is usually the case where individuals are brought up in very close-knit families, such as those in Asian cultures.
With time, each individual “stabilizes” into one persona that is accepted by the community, where this persona is a composition of various extracts from other learned personas to live in a way that is recognizable and understandable by others. And hence socially fabricated for one’s acceptance by others, for others.
And with this stabilization, most are kept in this persona, with additional changes made as layers on top of the main.
However, it has come to me to realize that “stable personae” are not a natural thing with respect to human potentialities. A human being can take on multiple personas, as long as the environment allows it, or does not restrict it. With this premise, it implies that there would occur instances in which the “stable persona” is forced to be different, or is no longer enforced.
Not many people are able to leave this state due to conditioning. And the natural discomfort or fear of uncertainty, combined with the subconscious fact that the engineered persona to date was the effort of many years, changing a persona immediately without a positive reference would dismantle the benefits obtained when assuming that persona. It also carries the hidden assumption that when one changes persona, one can no longer revert, or may not know how to do so, and further that the environment would have been impacted such that a reversal is no longer accepted. A very common example is one where a heated argument with another person causes an irreversible impact to the relationship, or that it would take immense effort to rebuild it.
With all these, the overall restriction imposed on the individual is that of a non-changing persona. Add on to that the flavour of personal power as the measure of identity.
The preceding discussion was all to prepare for the central thesis : That the over-association of identity-persona and power as an equivalent of “self” compels one to mainly express in that dimension, and with capacities to even disregard natural impulses of the “body”, leading to a disconnect between the mind(stuck in conscious power-based identity) and the body.
The idea is that with such a persona in place, the individual strives to express to its best ability whatever he wishes to endeavour on. Supported and encouraged by a system that rewards measured “performance”, the individual is led to believe that this method of “striving” may bring it to the threshold-of-effect, where gains may be derived. The main problem with this is two fold.
First, the effects of “striving” too hard places stress on the body, and the body will respond – by nature. Second, the assumed stable persona is an engineered abstract idea/memory of being – it is not by nature. But, because of conditioning, the individual tends not to know a clear limit of when to stop. And further since the individual is uncomfortable with contemplating a change, he musters on.
So begins the interaction between the mind and body, with the self-conscious body supporting the intentions of mind.
Then, when the desire for expression is let go, the real body condition surfaces. All the physical manifestations of the body to support the expression is released since it is no longer needed. The real body condition surfaces and both mind and body may realign and decide what to do next. It is here that one starts to notice the effects of rapid aging and deterioration. On the other hand, a very strong willed individual may choose to “express-to-death”, and muster the biggest endurance for pain or discomfort against the body’s indication. This creates complete loss of “control” by the body, and becomes creates an imbalance within that would ultimately lead to “cancer”. Or the individual may choose to surrender all desires, and instead “will” to live on. This creates a reversal for as long as he can sustain it.
Leave a Reply