Could it be that our ideas of ourselves often fail because we don’t understand what an ‘individual’ is? You are an individual. But how do you know this? What is there about ‘you’ that makes you unique – a one off? This is a subject that has often fascinated me. And when ever I look into it, ‘you’ disappear.
You know you are ‘you’ because society tells you so.
We live in a world of individuality, where there is nothing above ‘you’. No God, no wider influence, no meaning above your own values.
Experience, though, says different.
‘You’ are defined by the culture to which you belong. Social pressures help to mould your way through life. Even your genetic structure in not yours – it is an amalgam of that of your parents.
‘You’ are not as individual as you think. And I am quite sure that it goes far deeper than this. And I am sure of this through researching the paranormal, where the mind that is essential to ‘you’ can appear far more adaptive and ‘communal’ than we presently understand.
What are the essentials of ‘you’?
Well, a big part of ‘you’ are your emotions. These define much of your character, responses and ideals. Yet, whilst the reasons for emotional displays and stimulus may be specific to ‘you’, this is only part of the story.
Regardless of why a particular emotion exists, the simple fact is, emotion ‘types’ seem to be of the ‘species’ rather than ‘you’. Love, hate, sorrow, joy, fear and the rest were not invented by ‘you’, but by the species. Put simply, they are not yours alone.
Personality holds similar problems.
Carl Jung formulated the idea of a collective unconscious populated by ‘archetypes’ that are expressed in mythology. Yet, when you deconstruct this type of ‘archetype’, what you end up with are specific character types.
These include the child, trickster, sage, judge, hero, etc. And together they form the various character fragments within everyone’s mind, from the judge (conscience) to the trickster – that element of ‘you’ that varies from the impish to the absolute evil. Yet their collectivity suggests they are not of ‘you’.
Much of ‘you’ is beyond conscious thought.
‘You’ do things in certain ways that are not of ‘you’, but of the species. We know these impulses as instinct. Beyond scientific understanding and beyond ‘you’ it is nevertheless a big part of you.
So as we can see, ‘you’ – i.e. those parts of ‘you’ that are specific to ‘you’ – do not actually exist in a fundamental form. Rather, I think the best way to understand ‘you’ is to accept ‘you’ are not yours.
Rather, what we call the individual is an amalgam of outside influences. How that amalgam is shaped IS specific to ‘you’, so, yes, you are ‘you’ in the final analysis. But how you became ‘you’ is far more than ‘you’ alone.
Why is this important? Well, the biggest influence upon you is how your culture defines ‘you’. And the present culture is materialist, atheist and consumerist, all of which require ‘you’ to only find meaning in yourself.
Meaning above ‘you’ is a definite ‘no’ in today’s world. The above suggests this is not true. And it only exists because they have convinced you that you is really ‘you’.
THE ROOT OF DESIRE
We can do it with passion. It can take over our entire mind, dictate our every action. Whether the subject is the person you love or a hamburger, it is immaterial. When you want something so much, you are the plaything of your desires.
The ‘hamburger’ is more important to the subject than my flippancy seems to suggest. It was the psychologist Abraham Maslow who devised the idea of the ‘hierarchy of wants’. It was a simple system to explain what drives us.
Most people only achieve the first four basic wants.
These are to eat, to have shelter, to procreate and have family, and to satisfy your self-esteem. The average life, and social evolution itself, seems to fit into these four categories.
The mind and body seem to be hard-wired to achieve these things, and usually in the order mentioned above. And at the root of these goals is our ‘desire’ for them. And arguably, without the impulse to ‘desire’ something, we would never do anything at all.
This tells us something important about ourselves.
We like to think of human beings as rational people, yet desire is very much an emotional state. So seeing it is so important to our survival and achievement, are we really as rational as we think?
I suspect not. Rather, we are what we are because of our emotional desires. And we will crave a particular desire absolutely whenever it enters our mind – even if it is as innocuous as that hamburger.
OBSESSIVE ESSAY
We’ve all heard of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. The media has portrayed it in both funny and serious forms. How many baddies in movies nowadays are such obsessives? Gee, you know he’s going to strike when all the tin labels are facing you.
And don’t forget the towels in the bathroom. If they are all hung the same way, get out of that flat quick, lady. He’s going to control you, or kill you. But what is the reality of OCD, as it is popularly known?
Well, we’ve all got a touch of OCD in us.
Best described as an urge towards obsessive order, it can get to the stage where the silliest ‘ritual’ can be an absolute requirement for peace of mind. But tell me, who doesn’t have ‘routine’ in their life? Indeed, ritual and routine are often closely associated, both leading to order in your life.
We all have areas of life where this is the case. We may be sloppy in many things, but we all have that touch of OCD where it counts.
This is where OCD becomes important.
Some people become obsessive because they are stuck in a particular attitude or situation they don’t like, or are unable to change. When this happens, you surround yourself with familiarity – and this can often be in your routine.
But I’ve noticed another important aspect of OCD. Consider the really successful people in life. How did they do it? Usually, the answer to that they stuck at a particular thing obsessively. What is that, if not OCD?
Maybe obsessiveness isn’t always a bad thing. It can be the route to success.
EXTREME BEHAVIOUR
I’ve been thinking about extreme behaviour and why we risk our lives for fun. After all, we don’t have to go to ‘extreme sports’ to realize we increasingly take risks.
In one way, this can be explained as a rebellion to normal life, which is increasingly moving towards being risk free. We’re living longer, so see our lives as more precious – life is just a more stable commodity these days. But maybe there’s more to it.
A long time ago I came up with a ‘theory’.
It went like this. Whenever I think of pleasure involving physical interaction, it became clear that to do it in excess usually led to pain.
This is true from over eating to something as innocuous as tickling. So could it be that to indulge in pleasure, we are really courting pain? If we accept this as a possibility, then it seems that deep down in the human psyche we are all masochists.
History seems to bear this out.
Every period of history has ended up in atrocious pain, such as war or unrest, as if we are geared to self-destruct just for the hell of it. Even our environmental madness can be seen, in psychological terms, as an unconscious process guaranteed to bring pain through wanting pleasures.
I have called this process our Masocology, and I think it lies deep, deep down behind many of our actions. Maybe in realizing the masochist in us all, we may finally be able to do something about it.
THE THINGS WE FEAR
No human emotion is as potent as fear. Fear is certainly a major part of human civilisation and instinct. Even going back to animist, tribal societies, fear seemed to be fundamental to placating the ‘spirits’ in the ‘pact’, the basis of spiritual understanding, as we know it.
Everything is so huge in the universe, and fear drives us
on to become bigger, to define knowledge to overcome fear. Present scepticism of the paranormal can be seen as rational people expressing fear – maybe of the unknown, maybe of the confusion that could follow the fall of a paradigm.
I don’t think we could live without fear.
Have you noticed that the popularity of horror fiction and crazy antics such as bungee jumping seem to increase when the world seems peaceful?
It seems to be a survival instinct; an emotion we need. But the danger comes in fear being manipulated, or in over-reaction. This comes from governments using fear to control us, to an overly active fear that leads to phobias.
Fear can be vanquished – in the heroic act; in human determination to do something.
Interestingly, fear can also be reduced through spiritual enlightenment, especially in the eastern model. But is this removing oneself from ‘human’ society and influence and entering another state?
Maybe if we could truly understand this state, fear would be reduced. But would we be truly human if we did? Maybe it is better to retain our conspiracy theories and phobias, and accept them as the downside of an emotion that is essential to who we are.
Oh dear, that sounds as if I fear not having the ability to be afraid.
LITTLE VOICES
My attention has recently been placed upon ‘inner voices’, which has got me thinking about the subject. At least, I think it’s me, or maybe it’s those little voices in my own head.
The most logical explanation for the voice is that it is a defence mechanism – to warn you when you are about to put yourself in physical danger, or maybe to tell you that what you’re about to do is immoral – you know, conscience.
The most likely explanation for the voice can be found in the split-brain concept, where the brain has two cerebral hemispheres, one of which seems to control rational function, whilst the other is artistic.
In normal life we use the rationalist – the typical left brainer – but when we dream, or go artistic, the right brain comes into its own. And it is here that the voice in the head can be particularly useful.
As well as the functions described above, my little voice used to get me into all sorts of trouble, but then I decided to control it and use it as the artist. Now it is my ‘muse’, and it diverts all its destructive power to helping me with ideas for stories, essays, etc.
In this sense, it’s become a useful little fella; although sometimes it refuses to speak, and for ages I’ll have no ideas. Then, suddenly, it will give me a brainstorm, and ideas will pour out of me, leaving me exhausted.
Hence, I have an uneasy relationship with my little voice, but I wouldn’t like to be without him. We talk often, deciding this or analyzing that. But the question is, does this make me just a slightly bit mad?
I suppose in a way it does – not because I have an inner voice, but that I talk about it. No, madness comes when you begin a dialogue with the inner voice, and suddenly you realize you’re not part of the conversation.
MOANING MEN
Okay, I’m a man and I’m going to moan. I’m going to moan about a lot of other men. It isn’t that I’ve put a skirt on or anything like that, but some men just… well, you know …
I’ve thought about it often and it seems that men between their late 30s, right up to 65, are miserable, with life being a bitch and the ‘mid-life crisis’ in full swing.
Did men have such crises before they were invented?
I don’t think they did – which suggests we tend to be infected by any social or psychological term that comes along. But could it be that the mid-life crisis IS a reality, due to forces within society we have created ourselves?
Perhaps the most important thinker behind the term was Carl Jung. He looked at men closely and realized there was something missing in their lives from about the late 30s. But whereas the term caught on, Jung’s reasoning did not.
To Jung, we had become entrapped in material living.
What did he mean by this suggestion? Basically, to be fulfilled, a man has to be a success in a material way, but this is only half of living. There is also the spiritual side, the bonds, the intuitions – basically, the meanings of life.
To be fully mature, a person has to be aware of both these influences.
Indeed, only can we be whole by appreciating both. Hence, in tying ourselves too much to a material world, life becomes unfulfilling once success has been achieved.
He was a clever fellow was Jung. Unfortunately, though, it was only the ‘sound bite’ that took off, the ‘reason’ being forgotten in an angst-ridden material half-world.
IT'S NO JOKE
Scientists seem determined to reduce the human condition to the level of an animal or computer. With the former, we are said to respond due to our genetic conditioning, just like any other animal. With the latter, computer boffins are going all out to produce artificial intelligence which incorporates the elements we have in the human mind.
This degree of species self-hate is worrying. For when we seem to be at the apex of our supposed individuality, we are trying to blot out any possibility of individuality existing.
In one sense, I like this. Individuality is a con – we have always been driven by species and cultural elements. But to do this through self-loathing is a definite error. But then again, it is only following a social trend determined to remove the human from everything we do.
Such a social trend is known as political correctness – a form of thought police that insists we wrap up our emotions and drives in a mental hold-all and never let them out.
The most obvious form of dehumanisation used by the PC brigade is a ban on humour. Any form of joke that insults minorities is a no, no. But the problem with this is that if you take away the power of insult, the power of humour is taken away also. Humour is taking the mickey, whether out of yourself, a situation or others. Rarely does such humour imply hate. Rather, it implies understanding. Which is a vital point the PC brigade don’t understand.
One form of humour is particularly cutting. This is the humour used by a person facing an extreme crisis. We may decide that this is not the time to be funny. But when a decision is with us whether to laugh or cry, the former usually gives the incentive to battle whatever problem we face.
The importance of humour in this field spills over into life in general. When a disaster strikes and we read about it in the paper, or watch it on the news, we are all affected. Okay, we don’t grieve – or shouldn’t – but we feel sympathy with fellow human beings.
But it is not always easy to cope with such an emotion. Hence, the natural way of dealing with it is to crack a joke. Indeed, one important role of the internet is to become a repository for the type of humour I mean.
This is self-therapy, for humour is, more than anything else, a product of insecurity. Think of the tragic comic, the awkward laugh. Humour is a way of coping. And this is true in times of tragedy – whether personal or global – and in dealing with the more general problems in society.
To tell a joke is to be human, to care, to understand. And for as long as the PC brigade fail to understand this, we will class them as not funny at all.
WHAT AN INSULT
The Nanny State encroaches on and on. Slowly – apathetically – we are abandoning our right to be individuals, family members and thinking human beings. We used to say that the personal is the political. We never dreamt that it would become a reality, with politicians doing the thinking for us. And if such thinking should be done by anyone, it certainly shouldn’t be politicians.
Nowhere is this problem more obvious than in the moves towards new laws on insult. Taking viable standards that insist we don’t insult racial or sexual groups to the extreme, we will soon be unable to express an opinion. Already we are attuned to the idea that a criticism of any sort is a personal insult. And when this becomes the norm, free speech will have become a thing of the past.
Following on from an inability to insult will come an onward march towards curbi
ng insulting behaviour. Take the beloved cleavage put on display by so many today. This will insult a whole host of religions. Elderly people kissing tends to be frowned upon by the young. Sayings such as Hocus Pocus and Mumbo Jumbo are insults to Catholicism and African religions respectively. The westernised Halloween party is an insult to paganism. Even left and right wing politics can be seen as insulting to the other.
The time could well come when all these valid acts and behaviour could be classed as unlawful through insult. In Britain alone we could be dealing with a hundred million thought crimes a day. We will all be criminals then.
Of course, that is the ultimate. But unless we make it clear that forms of insult are a natural consequence of people having a particular lifestyle, our supposed freedoms from insult will result in an inability to do anything at all.
Two strains of thought seem to be pervading such laws of insult. The first is a creeping politicisation of commonsense. In the past, people have instinctively known what is, or is not, an acceptable insult. This divide no longer seems clear. Such a problem is becoming endemic to society. But the second train of thought is even more worrying. More and more the authorities are attempting to place a sense of guilt upon our actions and thoughts.
Making us all feel guilty about everything is an important political tool, conditioning us to certain degrees of compliance. Medieval Europe perfected the behavioural model in proscribing certain behaviour as against the Will of God. Such empowerment of the political over the personal is the road to totalitarianism, with the State as parent, and the population a new form of mental serf. There is no greater insult to freedom than that.
THE GOD MAN
There is a constant theme with killer couples. From Fred West to Ian Brady, and encompassing practically all of the rest, we have one dominant killer and a stooge. The near worship the stooge places on the partner is overwhelming, and has a similarity to the veneration placed on the cult guru by the disciple. However, this similarity doesn’t end here.
I, Society Page 4
