Humans so desperately want to understand the world around them. They are built to understand, and they are built to have an interest in knowing, and this is shown in how far they’ve come from their ancestors. In this urgency to know, to understand, to become more aware of the world around them, they’ve diligently searched for the information that would enable them to apprehend what has enabled things to be. This has brought benefits, undeniably, and without this compulsion to know, we would not have brought ourselves such comfort compared to our ancestors thousands of years ago. Yet, there is a hidden truth in all the searching of truth, which is that there is always more truth to be found. Whenever there is an understanding, it is then usurped by greater and larger understanding, and the cycle continues forever. In spite of this awareness, or I assume awareness, we still search deeper within things. I want to establish why this searching is to be wary of, in both the contexts of the internal and external world, and how we might alter our thinking to be more accepting of this reality.
Understanding is our innate interest to know. We want to understand how certain things interact and react with each other. It becomes a need, as we feel like we need to know in order to do things, or we need to know in order to feel okay. If only we knew X, then everything would be okay, or if we knew how to do Y, then things would make sense. Certainly, there are times where this ends up being the case, but in my experience, I merely reach another door. I find myself in a hallway of doors, trying various keys to different doors, and once a door opens, it brings me to a new hallway of doors, in which I try different keys. This continues on, indefinitely, and I can become so deep within this labyrinth of doors that I don’t know where it began. At times, I become so occupied with getting deeper into something that I forget where that something began, and because I don’t know where it started, how am I supposed to know when it starts again?
For myself, I have been a person who has wanted to know, and this has done more harm than good. I wanted to know because I wanted to feel comfortable, because how could you feel comfortable in a world you cannot understand? This world has so many variables all at play with each other, creating impacts of such sizes I am incapable of comprehending, and I’m supposed to be okay with that. Obviously, no human is capable of experiencing omniscience, and that’s okay, and I’ve never been delusional enough to think such a thing would be possible, but I wanted at the very least to know something. To know one thing well, to know it through and through, but that has not happened, and it won’t.
I ended up gravitating towards the “thinker” archetype, but in the worst way possible. I have described in the past how there is a difference between the person who “does things,” as in, has an impact on the external world, and the person who “does not do things,” as in, has very little impact on the external world. Admittedly, I fall into the latter group most of the time, but in the past, it was more extreme. This is worth mentioning because while spending all that time in my head, and not really doing anything, I was trying to understand things from within that small context. I would search out information to aide me in whatever I was thinking about, but that was always limited, and how far I could go similarly was limited. It’s like I couldn’t break through barriers, and I still cannot break through those barriers, despite being ones within my mind.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that, no matter how hard I tried, there was going to be a limit to what I was going to apprehend, and to top that off, I wouldn’t ever get to the bottom of anything. Practically, this doesn’t matter, because you don’t need to reach the bottom, or the core, in order to reach a level of understanding that enables you to do or act in a certain way. Electricity can be noted as a phenomenon, although we can measure it, utilize it, and modify it, to fit our needs. We can perceive it, know how it works, to a limited extent, but within that extent, it can be used. It wasn’t a necessity to fully understand how it came to be and how it works, we don’t need to know which way the electrons flow, but I know many of us would like to.
I want to clearly define external and internal in ways not dissimilar to the past, but with some minor adjustments. By external, I’m speaking of the world that is not within the mind, the one that can be felt and perceived by outwardly senses. By internal, I’m speaking of the world that is the mind, and of which others cannot perceive unless you externalize the internals. Clearly defining these two sides as different helps us more easily classify and categorize what things belong to where, like thoughts belonging to the mind, and thus being internal. However, what cannot be defined is that the internal did not know what it knows as a result of its own existence. It only knows anything, or believes such, because it has perceived reality as external, and then with that perception, brought it within the mind, and has tried to make sense out of it in the best way it could. This is fine, but keeping the two sides clearly defined as separate can enable us to dig directly into how understanding impacts both sides in different ways.
The external world includes the things you can feel and others can feel, or can measure, and these things are consistent from perceiver to perceiver. We can use different labels for what the thing is, or different methods to reach a calculation, and we might even try to predict what is to happen in the future based on what can be perceived in the present, and what has already happened in the past. Notably, these things are happening in what we would consider the external world. We can do all of these things in our head, and that’s part of the task, but in our means to communication, we then have to exert ourselves to share that information, which cannot be done internally, because as much as modern society attempts to strive for it, we are not a hivemind.
Based on this definition, we can notice that there is an interest to maintain similarity and consistency from human to human. It does not have to be perfect, but it has to be somewhat aligned, otherwise, how could we all decide whether something is true or not true? How could we decide what is or is not? We assign labels, agree on the labels, and use the labels in agreeance to their assigned meaning. The only issue with this is that we now have a clearly defined difference between things. Instead of a whole, we have many parts within the whole. This is not a conversation about reductionism vs. holism, either. Whether you want to explain things by breaking them down, or by building up them, it doesn’t matter. You are still doing the same thing, assigning labels, and explaining how each thing that has been assigned a label interacts with another thing.
For all intensive purposes, this makes sense, and is necessary. How are we to communicate information without words, numbers, pictures, or another type of media that can be replicated to indicate or reflect something? If we did not choose this path, we would not have what we do now, but in being in this world of labelling, we also know not of what has been lost. We don’t know what it is like to be without words, without labels, and we can attempt to distance ourselves from them, or play in a sea of contradictions, but once one is tainted, it cannot be undone. This is significant because, there is a pattern to be noticed in our need to understand. We become aware and learn something, assign it a label, and then dig deeper, to assign more labels, and repeat the process. The point in which this cycle ends is temporary; it is based upon our current ability to perceive things on whatever scale is possible at that time.
The downside is that we believe there is a difference between these things. It is this difference which causes the indefinite spiral to emanate. It emerges as a result of our labels, which define things as separate things, rather than as a whole. We don’t believe all things are one thing, and that one thing is all things. If we did, that would reflect in our behavior, and we wouldn’t do any amount of breaking down or building up. If we acted in accordance to that belief, we would not search for the reasons as to why things happen, they would happen because they are, and they are, because they happened. This usually brings discontent to individuals, and that’s fair, but it’s hard to ignore that without this system of assigning, we wouldn’t be so concerned with becoming deeper entranced into the world around us. Many things act similarly in the internal world, but the extent of that has been altered.
Most of us still label things on the inside, whether they be thoughts of images, melodies, dialogues, or monologues. These things are known to be something internal because they can be transferred to the external world in some way, shape or form, but have been formed in the mind. If this is not the case, it is probably because you are unaware of the methods to which how this could be done, or that its difficulty is too great. It might come in ways you wouldn’t expect either, as it isn’t always so direct. This is fine, but we need to look deeply upon how we think about the external world in the same ways we do the internal. For one, like said, we label the things happening inside of us. Secondly, we want to understand; where they stem from, how they are happening, and why they are happening.
The unique thing about the mind is that there are things that aren’t so easily measured; emotions. We feel, and these feelings are not always clear in how they came about. A large number of variables have played a part in impacting how we feel, and when we want to know why we feel a certain way, it’s usually pretty difficult. Not only this, it is usually a time of questioning only under the periods of time where we feel something negative. It is rare to feel happy and question your own happiness, as you’re preoccupied with feeling good, so for what gain would there be to know why that is? However, when you feel sad, you want to know why that is, how you got there, and what can be done to end the sadness. Despite being so complex, we have labelled these emotions; sadness, happiness, anger, and we might try to think we know what’s going on, but we probably don’t.
We most definitely can measure some of these emotions, and we can impact and alter our ability to feel, especially with pharmacological drugs. We can adjust our neurotransmitter reuptake for dopamine and serotonin, and then things feel better, we feel better, and this can be measured. However, the same drug and same dosage cannot be applied to each and every person the same, and what impacts that drug will have on the person could vary significantly. The reasons for someone to take these drugs can also be measured to a limited extent. They can seek out a therapist to find out what life experiences have impacted them more or less, to cause them to feel or think in certain ways. They can have measurements taken of their production of certain neurotransmitters to see if they are genetically predisposed to feeling certain ways.
All of these ways are great, and they have helped many people. In the context of understanding, however, we are still missing many pieces. Being able to measure something, test the thing being measured, and find a result, and then repeat it, does not always mean understanding. It just means that something has an impact on something else, it is repeatable, and we can perceive a change. If we wanted to find out where many of our emotions stemmed from, we would have to go even deeper, but the deepest parts are seemingly unreachable. We don’t know how we came to be, and we can’t account for every single event we’ve perceived, and we can’t measure how these things intermingle together. Maybe at some point we will, but that is the time in which we will no longer need to understand, so it isn’t applicable to us.
The pattern that keeps occurring here, is that, we can measure something, understand that, and then utilize it. This is what I side with, this is what I prefer. Being practical enables us to have the things we do. If we were to instead search endlessly within things, we would never come out of that hole, or the hallway of doors, as I’ve said already. However, I cannot ignore the reality that there are cases where individuals have searched in these hallways, but have brought tools to mark their entry, so that they would never become lost completely, and after some number of layers, they can come out and share knowledge which then has practical use. This does not stop understanding from being indefinite, cyclic, or a spiral. It still goes on forever, just because we can stop ourselves at certain points does not mean we have reached the bottom. There are times where we believe we have reached the bottom, but actually, we just lacked the ability to see how deep things can go. If keeping on the trend of practical uses, what might we actually do with this knowledge?
Is the knowledge that understanding is a spiral not inherently a spiral itself? To what extent is understanding a spiral? Well, I’ve done my best to share what that means, but I know, despite my explanations, it could go deeper, and be explained in so many ways it would take an infinite number of lifetimes to fulfill the time it would take to externalize all those ways. Although, there are some important takeaways that can be utilized as tools to aide ourselves in avoiding deep pits of indefiniteness. For one, we can mark where we begin something. For two, we can grow content with our inability to understand, and focus on understanding things we know can have an impact. For three, we can take the path of understanding directly, taking part in the indefinite spiral, if it gives us what we want.
If we want to know something, but we don’t know where it began, it’s going to cause us some difficultly. We don’t know where things began, because if we did, we wouldn’t have to measure things in reference to now, whether we’ve done that in the past or are currently doing it. However, we can create our own beginnings and endings in order to measure things in reference to whatever scale of time we’ve decided on. The beginning can be the start of an experiment, and the end can be the end of the experiment. We cannot know how all the things that came to be to impact the experiment, nor the depths of all the variables impacting the experiment, but we can get close enough to replicate things that have real impacts. It isn’t necessary to understand all reacting variables to measure and then utilize drugs. We need to know many, but we don’t need to know them all, and because of this, we can use them. This is the same for everything else, as well.
The distress caused by our own inability to understand things can be quickly rationalized. “Ah, of course I feel distress, it’s because I cannot understand things in totality!” Sure, but we can’t know why we feel distress in response to that thought, but we might think we can get to the bottom of it. Sometimes, depending on the thought, we can. Although, in this case, we’re more likely to conjure up rationalizations to why this is, and that’s okay for the most part, just know that’s what you’re doing. The reasons that emerge from your internal searching are created by you, and if they give you comfort, that’s fine, and that’s okay. If not, then I suggest you consider all the other things you cannot change. If you cannot know all things, or even one thing in its totality, think about how you cannot have an impact of complete change. Everything you do will just be a transfer of one thing to another, but that thing, in some sense, will persist in a way. Until, of course, well… you know.
We might take the awareness of our cyclic understanding, and go deeper and deeper within the spiral. If we love it, then, what’s wrong with that? If we know that we won’t reach the bottom, but playing the game is fun, then that’s perfectly okay too. In the great tower of understanding, one could climb or descend the steps for all lifetimes that could be had, and if that’s cool with you, how could I stop you? I respect those who want to understand things as much as they can, but I surely hope they know that no matter how fast they run up or down those steps, no matter how much they try, they’ll never get to the bottom. If they aren’t concerned with the destination, then I have no reason to be concerned about them.
Understanding is a spiral that knows no depths. The moment we have grasped something, we have then been fooled, because in the moment thereafter, what we grasped has been consumed by something greater. What was known to be completed is then incomplete, until we rush to complete it again, to then follow the same pattern, forever. This is okay, and I think one should strive to understand what they can, but they should be aware of the limits in which they will be able to understand. These limits, being fluid, upon many variables, are not limited only to the world around us nor the person in question. A limit which we can apply universally is that we cannot ever reach the bottom of anything. There is always more to explore, more to understand, and if one finds comfort in it, then I support them, but I believe they should be wary in their explorations. One should be content with their inability to understand anything completely, but they should not be in a state of fear to such a reality, nor should this stop them from understanding what small amount they can. We are all same in this regard, and we should try to comfort ourselves in ways that do not take away from the qualities that make us ourselves. Instead, we should focus on what can practically help us to live better lives of decreased pain and suffering. I would like to imagine that’s what we’ve done already, but there is much more work to be done, and I would like to stand by your side as we work together.