As I type these words, I am acutely aware of a thought process running on a parallel track, non coincidental, but not mutually exclusive. I take a brief pause and give way to a certain depth of philosophical musing. At once vague, misinformed and undisciplined thoughts rush into the mouth of my mind’s sphere, the sphere of capacity my mind possesses. My mind picks up “indiscriminately”, and flips the thread of thought upside down, sideways, runs its memory coils over the infinitesimally small width and across the full range of the harrowingly obscure length of the thread of thought. While this is happening, momentum shifts, it happens so fast, that my sphere of mind is choked to death with the ubiquitous energized threads of thoughts blistering from the abyss, or is it the deeper stores of stacked membranes of mind. The beautiful and at once thrilling experience of pondering over the mind's activity by me (the mind) puts me an awkward position of looking at myself from the inside.
The “impossible brutality” of this strangeness becomes supremely evident to me with elegant air of authenticity, of the mind's activity. If my mind is picking up thoughts “indiscriminately”, then how is it that I am even able to perform the activity that I frequently refer to as “thinking”? This gives me an outsider insight into my mind's preoccupations. Apparently, it appears as though my mind does give credence to the threads of thought that display their “voluptuousness” or their “certifications” from the insider. So, I am able to think, when I wish to think, I am able to perform actions, when I wish to do so. So, it’s not such a dismally diabolical state after all, it turns out that I have volition indeed.
I can only see the closed thick walls of the insides of my mind; my endeavors are not sufficiently complimented with equipment that would help me conjure up a vision of my mind with the stand point of an outsider. How can I do it, “I” is but one giant thread of though that runs almost incessantly through out the life of mind. This primeval thread “I” has been in the sphere of mind since the dawn of mind, and will reign predominance over infinitely multitudinous threads that claim their share through out the lifetime. If this prime thread “I” is holding up a “lion's share” of mind's activity perpetually, it becomes an area of interest to delve deeper into this labyrinth and find out if the thread “I” is capable of altering its width. It’s a genuinely interesting aspect of mind's activity, because the width of thread “I” determines the rest of mind's activity, one that interests us at the moment.
What does this thread “I” constitute of? The thread “I” is only materialized once it reaches the mouth of mind's sphere, and ceases to exist as it exits the sphere from the other end. One can visualize a sphere with two openings and threads running through it. I would be reminded by the proponents of cerebral study that I am playing safe by reducing the complex working of mind into threads and spheres. But, I beg to differ, I think, this visual apparatus provides us with elemental occupations hitherto unrealized. This would guide us through the absorbing and exhausting studies of perimeter to the insightful, mesmerizing and enchanting interiors.
The contents of the thread “I” are the packets of power boosters or energy called “esteem”. These packets precede the materialized thread “I”, “I” is simply the streamlined and disciplined exaction of energy, which materializes once it enters the mouth of mind's sphere, this concrete energy then assumes the incumbent role of “I” before it is expended in a spurt of exhaustion as it leaves thorough the other end.
If the thread “I” is not expended as usual, then it could lead to two conditions. One, when the thread is expended faster than the assumption that succeeds it. In this case, the mind caters to a thought process that is insulated from the energy packets of “esteem”; this thought process streamlines the flow inside the sphere to a degree that the flow itself is largely balanced by the expending rhythm of this thought. A thread of thought that dominates “I” does not form so easily, it forms, breaks and forms again. The perseverance of the thought depends upon the outside environment and does not conflict with the activity inside the mind. A thread of thought, once it has found the rhythm would see itself to completion and through out this period the primeval thread “I” just flows by the dictated rhythm and is ignored by the sphere. This happens with us all the time, when we are solving a mathematical problem for instance, the thread of “mathematics” once streamlined dictates terms to all the other threads inside the sphere. In a catastrophic event such as an injury due to an accident, the thread of “pain” takes predominance to an extent that the “I” is unarguably denied its usual “lion's share”. During sexual intercourse, the thread of “euphoria” or “orgasm” occupies almost all of the sphere’s volume and thereby chokes the “I”, leaving it dangling on the extremes of sphere, the thread “I” squeezes into the sphere, once the thread “euphoria” subsides with thinning out after expensive outpour.
We have seen the debilitating side of “I” with in the sphere of mind; let us also throw our attention to the other side of this theory. The “I” burgeoning into a thread that inflates and consequently debunking the futility of this act, an act that is not alien to us. The “I” inflates with the incessant deliverance of packets of “esteem”, as “I” inflates; it precludes the possibility of any other thread running parallel through the sphere of mind. The mind is thus rendered incapable of acting “wisely”, “rationally” or “thoughtfully”, for all of the mind's activity is filled with “I”.
A friend of mine always prides herself with oblique assertions such as “I do not care for money”, “I am not that kind of person”, and she is invariably “pushy” with questions such as “What kind of person do you think I am?”, “Do I come across as a miser?”
All these statements are manifestations of the later condition, “I” chocking the mind's sphere.
The mind's sphere itself is not capable of “balancing” the “underflow” or “overflow” of “I”, so it becomes all the more important for us to find out about the determinants of the flow. “External environment” is a prime factor; problem solving, painful accidents and sexual intercourse are examples of the “underflow” determinants. The “underflow” is not a mental “condition”, it only materializes with the spur of moment, and gives way to “I” as the moment's activity is expended and the emotions subsided.
Unlike “underflow”, “overflow” is a mental “condition”. Any mind preoccupied excessively with “I” is symptomatic of a futility of living. The “fallacy” stares right into the objective apprehension of mind over the external world. The mind's excessive preoccupations on “I” begin in the “in situ” stages of a life. A mind that is confronted with “indifference” exacts attention and this endeavor which is impelled by a neurotic “malaise” directly contributes to the inflation of “I”. When the mind is granted a favorable response, when the mind is “attended to”, it uses this tool too often. As the time passes by, mind mistakes common countenances to indifference and puts its tool of “inflation” to use with stuttering effect of “esteem” packets, subject finds himself throbbing with “self” assertion.
“Indifference” of external world does not necessarily be so much an unfavorable determinant as it is made out to be, it can simply be a child crying incessantly to seek it's mother's attention. This infantile instinct is discarded gradually with “rationale” filling up the voids, as the subject grows. In many cases though, this natural “state of transfer” does not happen, and the subjects grow out to become overly “self” conscious leaving too little for “cerebral” thinking. This is an utter futility of living a life, and quite unfortunately, they do not know their condition, neither would they comprehend the enormity of the situation, for their preoccupations with “I” leave no room for cerebral thinking. When confronted with this analysis, they would laugh out loud is my guess.
Comments