Recently I've been pondering over the effects of human relationships, from both negative and positive viewpoints. I've melded a smidgeon of Jedi philosophy with classic metaphysical interrogation in order to sew together a flashy and intricate weave of theoretical fancy.
First off I revert to the Cartesian "Cognito, Ergo, Sum" principle, "I think, therefore I am". This method classically came about when Descartes managed to deny the possibility of existence in everything apart from the fact that he was thinking. Those who have experimented with psychedelic drugs probably have a firmer grasp on this principle than I do.
This belief would pronounce that all human beings and other forms of life are actually only reflections of our own consciousness given physical form so that the more centralised local of our thought processes may interact with it.
Now, I am by no means a Metaphysician in the Cartesian sense of the word. Personally whether reality is generated internally or externally has no bearing on my life so long as the effect produced remains constant. If the world is produced externally, only my physical actions can cause any difference to the world. If it is generated internally, I am equally incapable of controlling my subconscious superstructure, and must live through my illusions to alter my own reality.
The benefit of viewing the world in a semi-Cartesian way (here I'm using the word Cartesian completely uncertain if it relates directly to Descartes or only to certain mathematical principles) is that the whole world is no longer split into individual locales, but is rather seen as a living and breathing whole. If something out in the world is not suited to my own ideas of morality or fairness, you can damn well bet that changing it affects my overall mental state, almost as if I'm removing a tumor from my neurological byways. The human mind in this way is inseparable from the minds of other human beings, because in effect they are each accessible centres of consciousness which once unified with my own will adapt the world to my own personal idea of moral rectitude.
Take for example a single average person, with a single body and a unique idea of how the world should be run. Alone, and relatively powerless, this person has two methods of gaining control over the world.
First, they may utilise some weapon, a gun or a missile or a sword, and begin to obliterate every other idea in the world by destroying their physical counterparts (living human bodies). They may convince others to do the same with powerful, immediate ties; hate, anger, fear and suchlike. So long as they hold the power to protect their own idea while simultaneously eradicating other ideas they are achieving their goal. Of course, soon those temporary ties of fear and hate break down and the destroyers turn upon themselves, each trying to assert their own idea as dominant, because so long as there is hate and fear two ideas may never co-exist.
The second method is what has come to be known as 'good', or 'the light side'.
It starts when our singular individual shares information about their idea, taking the time to teach another how exactly that idea works, building up a powerful connection between the two individuals by sharing, understanding, kindness and patience. Our individual allows a certain degree of co-existence and may even find its idea adapting to incorporate aspects of the other individual. There is growth, and there is aid. At the end two individuals (in physical terms) with identical ideas exist. They then both work on building relationships with other individuals of the same type, and slowly the world changes so that a single idea of co-existence is held by every being.
Naturally if reality is seen as an external and self-perpetuating institution regardless of personal consciousness then the efforts made to uphold a single idea will quickly fall back to a different state of being. A cycle is created. But if you view reality as a direct result of your own consciousness then all your efforts to unify the world are a measure of your personal control and influence over your own mind.
The way I picture it is identical to my concept of the human brain. There is one part I control directly, my conscious or logical thought, and several parts I have no control over, my sub-conscious or psychological thoughts. As I learn to have a greater control of my memory, initiative, emotions and reasoning through force of habit - how I treat my mind and how much effort I put into teaching myself constructive mental habits - my conscious 'will' spreads and grows in both power and control. It is as if I am developing additional synapses within my brain to program my nervous reactions.
This is how I have chosen to see human relationships. I engage each individual as a resource with potential which given adequate time may become an instrument to further my idea of a moral universe. I do not think of them as any less human than they are, any less special or any more disposable. I do not wish to destroy them, but rather to know them, shape them, and be shaped by them. I view myself as as the centre of a great synaptic matrix which acts as a measurement of my influence over the world.
This is Synapse Theory: A study of the human collective and human relationships in relation to an individual. There is much more to be written on it and a vast amount more to discover, and I look forward to doing so.
First off I revert to the Cartesian "Cognito, Ergo, Sum" principle, "I think, therefore I am". This method classically came about when Descartes managed to deny the possibility of existence in everything apart from the fact that he was thinking. Those who have experimented with psychedelic drugs probably have a firmer grasp on this principle than I do.
This belief would pronounce that all human beings and other forms of life are actually only reflections of our own consciousness given physical form so that the more centralised local of our thought processes may interact with it.
Now, I am by no means a Metaphysician in the Cartesian sense of the word. Personally whether reality is generated internally or externally has no bearing on my life so long as the effect produced remains constant. If the world is produced externally, only my physical actions can cause any difference to the world. If it is generated internally, I am equally incapable of controlling my subconscious superstructure, and must live through my illusions to alter my own reality.
The benefit of viewing the world in a semi-Cartesian way (here I'm using the word Cartesian completely uncertain if it relates directly to Descartes or only to certain mathematical principles) is that the whole world is no longer split into individual locales, but is rather seen as a living and breathing whole. If something out in the world is not suited to my own ideas of morality or fairness, you can damn well bet that changing it affects my overall mental state, almost as if I'm removing a tumor from my neurological byways. The human mind in this way is inseparable from the minds of other human beings, because in effect they are each accessible centres of consciousness which once unified with my own will adapt the world to my own personal idea of moral rectitude.
Take for example a single average person, with a single body and a unique idea of how the world should be run. Alone, and relatively powerless, this person has two methods of gaining control over the world.
First, they may utilise some weapon, a gun or a missile or a sword, and begin to obliterate every other idea in the world by destroying their physical counterparts (living human bodies). They may convince others to do the same with powerful, immediate ties; hate, anger, fear and suchlike. So long as they hold the power to protect their own idea while simultaneously eradicating other ideas they are achieving their goal. Of course, soon those temporary ties of fear and hate break down and the destroyers turn upon themselves, each trying to assert their own idea as dominant, because so long as there is hate and fear two ideas may never co-exist.
The second method is what has come to be known as 'good', or 'the light side'.
It starts when our singular individual shares information about their idea, taking the time to teach another how exactly that idea works, building up a powerful connection between the two individuals by sharing, understanding, kindness and patience. Our individual allows a certain degree of co-existence and may even find its idea adapting to incorporate aspects of the other individual. There is growth, and there is aid. At the end two individuals (in physical terms) with identical ideas exist. They then both work on building relationships with other individuals of the same type, and slowly the world changes so that a single idea of co-existence is held by every being.
Naturally if reality is seen as an external and self-perpetuating institution regardless of personal consciousness then the efforts made to uphold a single idea will quickly fall back to a different state of being. A cycle is created. But if you view reality as a direct result of your own consciousness then all your efforts to unify the world are a measure of your personal control and influence over your own mind.
The way I picture it is identical to my concept of the human brain. There is one part I control directly, my conscious or logical thought, and several parts I have no control over, my sub-conscious or psychological thoughts. As I learn to have a greater control of my memory, initiative, emotions and reasoning through force of habit - how I treat my mind and how much effort I put into teaching myself constructive mental habits - my conscious 'will' spreads and grows in both power and control. It is as if I am developing additional synapses within my brain to program my nervous reactions.
This is how I have chosen to see human relationships. I engage each individual as a resource with potential which given adequate time may become an instrument to further my idea of a moral universe. I do not think of them as any less human than they are, any less special or any more disposable. I do not wish to destroy them, but rather to know them, shape them, and be shaped by them. I view myself as as the centre of a great synaptic matrix which acts as a measurement of my influence over the world.
This is Synapse Theory: A study of the human collective and human relationships in relation to an individual. There is much more to be written on it and a vast amount more to discover, and I look forward to doing so.
