THE RATIONAL MIND MAY THINK,
BUT IT DOES NOT TRULY KNOW BY ITSELF ALONE
All
human attempts to define personal truth and reality are never
absolutely certain, beyond a reasonable doubt. All truth and reality
definitions are relative to personal interpretation, and only become
absolute by common social group consensus.
Since all humans
are in a constant state of change...physical, emotional, mental,
social, spiritual...even the personal truth that appears to be
absolutely the "truth" is relative only to each person. Yet it is also
always subject to change and never absolutely true to even to each
person!
All individual perceptions, interpretations,
judgments, and actions are relative truth for any given moment; they
all subject to change, either consciously or unconsciously. Therefore,
the nature of all human truth and reality is that of a continuum of
uncertainty; always changing, never complete, never absolute!
Human
existence is the challenge of maintaining a balanced understanding..a
knowing..of the ever changing flow of life as it unfolds in every
moment.
The key to peaceful interaction with one's
outer environment is adaptability and flexibility rather than fixed and
rigid beliefs regarding how to react to a changing life flow.
Simply stated, the human expectation of finding an absolute truth and reality that is unchanging is illusory.
Understanding is relative only to any moment in time; always
potentially changing, never fully developed. Our perceptions of the
outer world form only momentary "certain" understanding that allows for
daily decision making.
Our once "flat" world became a round
world after Columbus; can it now be returning to a "flat" world or to a
new . . . one? In fact, the vertical axis underlying all rational
thinking and organizational social structures may be shifting to a
model of horizontal, equality for ALL?
As the rational mind can change its interpretation of reality, so can our total view change when we use our intutuitive mind.
Knowing
truth and reality exclusively by either the rational or intuitive mind
is flawed and incomplete. Only by a balanced knowing from both the
rational and intuitive minds can personal understanding find certainty
in the moment, albeit always permanently incomplete.
To think with both
minds offers the appropriate way of knowing personal truth and reality.
Rationalists and mystics each have only part of the complete answer.
And, even when perfectly balanced, they can only approximate truth and
reality.
We are always inputing new data from our external
world; we are always reconstituting and/or reinforcing existing beleif
systems. Our truth and reality therefore can always change...if we
consciously choose to modify what we think we know.
Also,
individual fear often arises from our lonliness. So we unite into
"group think" by associating with social groups that reinforce our
personal belief systems. This externally validated personal belief
system may offer greater certainty for the individual, but often will
cause social divisiveness. One group claims "their truth" is THE TRUTH
for all; while other groups dispute that claim. Social groups and
individuals compete to enforce their own limited versions of truth.
Interpersonal relationships become based on fear rather than trust,
competition dominates cooperation, arrogance conceals humility.
Wars result; peace is fictionalized. The individual floats in a sea of social confusion...Anomie!
However, all individuals have within themselves the total power to create a new vision of personal reality...at any time.
A person has accepted stress and chaos into their lives, so they can they can reject this situation.
The
curse of the rational mind can be transformed into its own cure when
balanced by the intutitve mind. The release of rational mind dominance
will occur to the extent that both a capability and willingness of a
person to change exisit within the person.
The difficulty
of this release of old belief systems is the "cotton candy wrapper" of
emotions that surround individual objective thoughts and aggregate
personal belief systems. This emotional subjectivity clouds logical
objectivity and inhibits the balancing of both minds.
Yet,
the complete power to strip away emotional attachments to objective
facts is within everyone, to some degree of possibility. The challenge
is to find our personal tolerance for the potential consequences of any
perceptual change.
Will resulting pain or pleasure
outweigh the other? Will my survival be more or less likely if I change
my beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors?
Who is really in charge of YOU?
And, are you willing and able to tell your rational mind
to go out for a coffee break?