The Anti-Soapbox: Collected Essays Page 13
what I refer to as “listening” to my body, and I consider it true, but only because my personal semantic reflects that broader, expanded definition. On the other hand, were I to say “Listen to your body” to someone without that same, expanded definition, then I wouldn’t really be communicating what I mean. There comes a point of restriction when true, informative meaning is destroyed, and by narrowing the above concept and its context into the inadequate “Listen to your body,” I am, therefore, not conveying that concept at all.
Going further with this example, let’s apply the narrowed semantic of “Listen to your body” to a real-life health condition: food intolerance, where certain foods variously offend the body. Ironically, food intolerance can produce a perverse craving for the offending food; thus, were the person to hold a narrow semantic of “Listen to your body” (such as “Do what feels right”), such a food craving could easily be confused for doing what is healthy, even though, in reality, eating the offending food is anything but, however “right” it feels. Conversely, were someone operating on that broader concept of “Listen to your body,” as defined above, then they would be less likely to fall prey to the perverse food cravings generated by food intolerance, thanks to their ability to observe that, yes, they crave a certain food, but that craving could be caused by a food intolerance, a possibility foreign to the narrow-minded thinking of the first person. In the end, the first person could wind up very sick for their semantic distortions. (An alternate example, along these same lines, is that of parasitic infection. Many parasites are known to influence the host’s thinking and behavior by secreting certain biotoxins and other substances, which could, like a perverse craving for an offensive food, make it feel right to behave self-destructively, if it suits the parasites—strange but true.)
Ultimately, the point of the “Listen to your body” example is this: our semantic mode of thinking can often give way to confusion, about ourselves and others both.
Let’s broaden this concept to greater society and the world. What if the vast majority of us operate on faulty, narrowed personal semantics? And, worse, what if we thought otherwise? What if the subscribers of “Listen to your body” all thought they were operating on the same concept, when they were really operating on a million different ones? Extend this principle even further: to politics, to religion, to our relationships and general interactions with others. Finally, apply this to our very thinking and reasoning, all the way to our most fundamental, subconscious feelings and the automatic behavior they give way to. What if, due to the power our semantics hold over us, we think we’re doing and saying and being certain things, when the reality is that we are merely acting out personal (and possibly baseless) semantics?
What if this pervasive, low-level distortion described the general state of things? What consequences could be expected from such a mess?
The consequences would be many, but one would be prominent: confusion. Not just within ourselves and our relationships and our pursuits, but confusion about our confusion itself. That is, we could be so confused, we don’t know we’re confused, being incapable of identifying the confusion. Such a condition can be uniquely dangerous, for it is both self-defeating and self-perpetuating. How can the lonely dog find company when it bites anyone who gets near?
By my reckoning, we are a people so confused by semantics and other mysterious psychological factors, we don’t know we’re confused.
What can be done (if something is to be done)? The answer is simple, though far from easy: awareness. We must become self-aware enough to grasp the semantic nature of our thoughts and perceptions. Only then can we dethrone the blind, often illogical perceptions that are the prime movers of our thoughts (and the world those thoughts create). Using self-awareness, we may replace our confusion with sound, sober thinking, free from the distortions wrought by the endless jumble of semantics that we hold. Optimally, this process begins individually, then expands outward, to eventually hit a tipping point at which widespread conscientious thought and action become possible, thus overthrowing the reckless, confused paradigm that presently governs most world affairs. Yes, this “plan” is hugely simplified, and more than a little idealistic; yet these adjectives do not invalidate the underlying truth of the matter.
A small undertaking? Certainly not. A worthwhile one? Certainly so. In fact, it could be argued that, as things stand, we don’t have much of a choice. It’s either a worldwide effort toward self-awareness and clear communication, or continue our confused, semantically-charged advance toward the cliff’s edge.
X. TAKE THE SILENT-MIND CHALLENGE
Think that silencing the mind is a bad thing, or that there’s nothing to gain from doing so? Think again.
It might not immediately make sense, but silencing the mind is a powerful technique for achieving mental health. Additionally, it is useful as a defensive maneuver, to protect oneself against the world’s many predatory people and forces. As for how something so simple as a silenced mind can accomplish these things, several principles must first be understood.
Foremost, the reader must realize that the average mind is not “quiet.” Even when the mind appears to be at rest, there is usually still activity “under the surface”—subconsciously, that is, those thoughts which might not be immediately accessible to one’s conscious, topside mind. Just as calm seas can conceal a huge, bustling world of marine life below its surface, so can a supposedly resting mind conceal a storm of subconscious thoughts. What sort of thoughts? Anything, potentially, from what to have for dinner tonight, to that disagreement at work this morning, to tomorrow’s weather, or even to things that happened years in the past—anything. The subconscious is a busybody, despite surface appearances.
Which brings us to the second thing to be understood: looping thoughts.
Thought-loops exist in that sea of subconscious thoughts described above. In short, a thought-loop is just that: any thought that repeats itself, creating a loop. Maybe it’s the obsessive replay of a memory; maybe it’s a belief (“I am good,” “I am not good,” “This place is good/not good”); maybe it’s a distinct message (“I should be working harder,” “The boss could come by anytime”). Whatever the actual thought, it repeats, echoing endlessly in the subconscious. Why is this important? Because such a subconscious thought-loop, for all its invisibility, can affect the conscious mind. And, likewise, the conscious mind can affect the whole person.
Why is this possible, that something as inconspicuous as a repeated thought can affect us so? Due to the next term: conditioning.
When one is “conditioned” in the psychological sense, it means, basically, that their mind is altered by some repeated influence. Just as a muscle is conditioned and strengthened by repeated use, such is the mind: repeat a thought enough, and it can brand itself upon the very framework of one’s thinking, changing the mind in a semi-permanent way. Think of mental conditioning as a mold that presses itself upon the mind, shaping it subtly but effectively. Combine this concept of conditioning with that of a thought-loop, and we see how such a loop can affect the mind in significant ways. Also, considering that such loops are often subconscious, as to be virtually undetectable, we see the potential for unhealthy influence.
What if one’s subconscious thought-loops are negative in nature? What kind of damaging conditioning might this inflict?
Once again, the effects can vary hugely from person to person, but there is one in particular common to nearly any mental conditioning: seeing things differently. That is, seeing what’s not there, or not seeing what is. Sound impossible, that mental influence alone can change how one sees the outside world? As unbelievable as it might seem, it is indeed possible to manipulate what someone sees or doesn’t see, and this hinges on the phenomenon known as “perception.” Put simply, one’s perception is how they see themselves and the world. Were you to “step into another’s shoes” and “see where someone is coming from,” you would be experiencing their perception of things, and because that perception is, mor
e or less, unique, it could be drastically different than your own. To best understand the concept of perception, consider an art class where the artists all draw the same object but produce radically different drawings—perhaps completely different, as to depict another object entirely. Why? Because the individual artists perceive that object differently.
Now, going back to how thought-loops and conditioning can affect the mind, we see the means by which this happens: conditioning changes one’s perception, so that the conditioned might see what isn’t there or ignore what is. In this manner, what one sees and thinks can be “filtered,” distorting their final perception of the world, the same as a camera outfitted with a special lens.
Better yet, here’s another example of perception and its effects on the whole person: hypnotism. Hypnotism is, really, just a means of controlling another person’s subconscious mind and perception; this is the basic definition of “hypnotic suggestion.” When a stage hypnotist hypnotizes a volunteer see the audience without clothes (which usually works, by the way), all that changes is the volunteer’s perception—in this case, to artificially strip