 |
| Photo by Prince Abid from unsplash |
The comprehension of meaning is a dilemma that has plagued mankind for millennia. Even the 20th-century renowned philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “To live is to suffer; to survive is to find meaning in the suffering.” It suffices to say that if meaning was a conundrum for a bright mind and thinker like Nietzsche, then meaning itself might just be a global problem.
The search for meaning is evident in all facets of human reality. The advent of philosophy, art, politics, ideology, religion, and a host of other intellectual endeavors has been for the sake of finding meaning—a desire for a common ground as a foundation to rationalize human existence and life in general. Mankind craves meaning to put structure and order on things so that they can comprehend them.
The search for meaning is crucial for the formation of human personality. Yes, humans need something to believe in to root their consciousness for the rationalization of a “why” to continue living. But this is not as much of an issue today compared to the early centuries when sociological contraptions were still open to scrutiny by the curious mind. Nowadays, it's a different ball game, where it seems as if information about the self and its environment is already saturated with cultural, social, and religious cues that steer individuals away from the inviting ethos of observation and critical reasoning. Today, many are born into the already stretched tentacles of state imprinting and a standardized educational system that is vilified by mainstream reasoning as the standard of erudition, or else one cascades into the fiery social labels of being an “illiterate.”
It is when one is able to deduce meaning for themselves that they can comprehend a self-defined order to the chaos and randomness presented by life. This meaning can be self-realized through non-polarized observation and critical reasoning, which fuse the thirst of the soul for integration and comprehension necessary for evolution. Sadly, this is not the case today, as social and cultural conditioning influences the collective’s mental synthesis, leaving little room for the individual to manifest the requisite tenets for independence of mind. As a result, what we have today is a proliferation chain of inherited ideals, thought patterns, behavioral norms, and religiosity, deduced by age-old evolutionary chronology of thinkers, patriarchs, and others who, in their own plight, were also in search of meaning for their own psycho-clarification. These ideals have been religiously etched into the human mind—or would one say canonized—forming the bedrock of a herd mentality that pushes back violently when it encounters dissenting thoughts or notions. As much as one tries to evade the use of the word, but honestly, one can't help but notice it reeks of indoctrination.
Fredric Nietzsche, in one of his quotes, posited that “the individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe; if you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But still, no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” Yes, there we have it—from the mind of one of the great thinkers of the 20th century—that no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning oneself. What does this really imply? Or rather, what does this mean? For one to be able to own oneself, it is quite simple: one must develop thoughts, ideas, and opinions that are original byproducts of personal observation and deduction, free from any social or cultural convention. This is tantamount to having a worldview from the authentic perspective of one’s experience: to know from what we realize and not from what we have been told. This is what sets the individual apart from the tribe.
Nonetheless, inherited knowledge also has its perks and is not entirely inimical to the mental synthesis of the individual. Yes, we all know the significance of myth and its profound impact on collective consciousness. Even the individual who has formed their own thoughts and opinions from critical reasoning will occasionally find elements of their critical thought resonating with the setting or dialogue existent in myth. So, it suffices to say that myth contains elements of truth, and perhaps the inherent desire to impose myth upon collective consciousness might not really be of sinister intent by the custodians who are imposing it; it might just be from a misguided intention of a dedicated responsibility to maintain the cohesion of the collective, whether from the premise of social obligation or religious piety.
The universe is ready to open the secrets of the cosmos to those who are willing to uphold the integrity of their consciousness by rooting themselves, defending, and fighting for what they believe is the truth in their spirit
 |
| Photo by Joese Martin Carrasco Martinez from unsplash |
It is then clear that people can derive meaning and perspective in life either from their personal evaluation of reality or from inherited socio-cultural or religious dogma. Whichever category an individual belongs to, trust me, it’s quite okay. Life can be chaotic sometimes, and any psychological solace one finds as a refuge for their mind in the storm of uncertainty is valid, so long as this grounding allows for the co-existence of one’s neighbor in the full comprehension of one’s co-being. It is surely fine. After all, we are all learning, and nobody has the right to claim they are the custodians of knowledge. Even still, the beautiful irony is that a person living in conditioned knowledge can have a broader imagination than the individual living in personal rationale of stimulus. Yes, it is very possible, as the conditioned individual functions psychologically from numerous stories and narratives they have been fed and which they agree with, compared to the personal rationale individual who has not had much exposure through travel and cosmopolitan interaction with other individuals. The only difference is that the conditioned individual lives more in their imagination (the resulting psychosis of living on unverified knowledge), while the personal rationale individual functions only by what they have realized and experienced from their direct interaction and interfacing with reality.
But really, in some way, both of them believe what they believe because they believe it to be true. Moving on objectively, what matters and the real essence of this dialogue is about people grounding themselves in their conviction regardless of whichever category they fall into, as described in the previous paragraph. Should you really stand for something? Is that even a valid question? To stand for something, the connotation is psychological. For a literal translation, if we are to stand for something, then we must stand on “something.” Resolving the psychological connotation would be thinking of “something” as the psychological foundation upon which our ideals are built—what we believe in that culminates our perspective, thought forms, and opinions. In this regard, to stand on “something” then translates into “believing what we believe.” What does standing for “something” mean if we deduce from the logical lexis in the preceding sentences? Simple answer: it just means being able to protect and defend what we believe in. This begs the question: Can you defend or, when necessary, put your life on the line for what you believe in? If you are able to do that, what are the perks? If you are not, what are the consequences?
 |
| Photo by Drew Hays from unsplash |
Africa, a continent with so much religious devotion—if not the most in the world regarding Western and Arab Orthodox monotheism—is yet rife with corruption, bigotry, and disunity. This is a typical example of what cognitive dissonance looks like: a far-reaching disconnection between what a person professes to believe in and the verifiable antecedents of their actions. Why is this so, and what is cognitive dissonance itself? Cognitive dissonance is the result of a conflict between what a person has been programmed to think is right and what their primordial instincts are nudging them to do. This scenario usually ends two ways, neither of which is beneficial to the individual. Firstly, if the individual does what they think is right but doesn’t feel the conviction to do it from a place of virtue, they have only played to the gallery, exhibiting hypocrisy of political correctness for the sake of social vindication. And in turn, if the individual acts on their primordial urges, they end up tripping into the pit of self-judgment as a result of judging their actions based on the criteria of what they have been programmed to “think is right.”
Nonetheless, the true reason why the individual suffers a conflict in the first place is due to personal unresolved hypocrisy—pretending to identify with a belief system for the sake of enjoying the benefits of inclusivity and security it provides by the herd. The individual is playing a game with themselves by adorning a facade when needed to navigate the avenues of leverage that come with belonging to the tribe of that belief system. The reason for the conflict is a disconnection between the individual’s perception and core beliefs. The individual appears to believe but has not committed their faculties completely in dedication, truth, and surrender to the ideal. On the surface, the individual manifests behavioral patterns mechanically orchestrated to exude the persona acquiescent to the herd but deep within has no requisite virtue whatsoever that validates their professed identity. In this situation, the individual is not really rooted in what they profess to believe and is not disposed to fight for this ideal or sacrifice themselves for the cause. This individual is not standing for something, not even what they think they believe in.
On the part of the individual who lives on knowledge acquired through personal rationale of engaged stimulus, there is not hypocrisy but rather a conscious cowardice in the acknowledgment of the absolute. They deny the immutability of the knowledge they have, which is grounded in personal realization and experience.
“The sky is falling, the wind is calling; stand for something or die in the morning.”
- Kendrick Lamar
 |
| Photo by Timothy Dikes from unsplash |
But here is the beautiful part: the universe does not care whether an individual is operating on conditioned or individual knowledge. The universe is only concerned about the degree of conviction, commitment, and dedication to what one believes in their heart of hearts as true. The universe is on the lookout for how much a person is willing to stake or sacrifice in the pursuit of what they hold dear to be true. It is not the matter that matters; what matters to the universe is the energy, dedication, and resolution. It is not about what is true or not; the universe understands that our psychological cultivation may have been swayed from the absolute by factors outside our control. Remember the biblical story of the parable of the talents: to the servants he gave different portions to trade with and came to request their progress after a certain time. It is not about the degree of knowing you have or its global appeal; the universe is concerned with how you conduct yourself with the truth you claimed to believe in. Only then can the universe deem one worthy to receive more—just like how the resourceful servants were rewarded.
The universe is ready to open the secrets of the cosmos to those who are willing to uphold the integrity of their consciousness by rooting themselves, defending, and fighting for what they believe is the truth in their spirit. The universe does not judge by the “quality of content.” No, the universe knows that we are all on a journey to realizing ourselves, and in this process, we encounter theories and ideologies that are sometimes not grounded in truth. After all, it’s still the universe that designed it that way, so the universe cares less about “quality of content” but prioritizes “quality of intention.” Remember another biblical story of the Widow at the temple who gave from her heart. Even though she didn’t know Christ, she was recognized as deserving a reward greater than those who gave more: her quality of intention was top-notch. Even though she gave little compared to the other rich people, it was obvious that she gave what she had from her heart in the volition of a cause and ideal that she holds dear and is firmly rooted in.
.jpg) |
| Photo by Ana Nichita on Unsplash |
The same biblical Christ said, “He who bears fruit, I shall prune him so that he would be able to bear more fruit.” The story of the widow is evidence that creation is looking for those who, even though not perfect or knowing absolute truth, are willing to submit, commit, and uphold themselves in the little purity, innocence, and virtue they have. It is these individuals that the Father sets aside for the journey towards clarity, divine knowledge, and power for the task of fulfilling divine will.
“The sky is falling, the wind is calling; stand for something or die in the morning.” - Kendrick Lamar
Comments
Post a Comment