I forget who said it, but “they” said something along the line of, “Once your every dream comes true, what is left?” I always took it to mean that having dreams wasn’t a bad thing, but putting them higher than one’s day-to-day enjoyment probably isn’t wise.
Of course, this flies completely in the face of most of the world; all the rules and methods and plans and processes to get money, grow money, save money.
It’s funny, if you think about it: We become convinced that it is possible to know a sense of fullness, of richness, or of delight that originates somewhere, outside of ourselves.
It is enticing, this belief that some ‘other’ can hand us something of which we have no knowledge, of which we have in no manner defined for ourselves, and for which we have given ourselves no dedication, focus, or analysis.
How do you know a thing without defining it, there, in the brain?
Who except yourself can possibly tell you about a thing and have your literal, full belief, full trust?
And yet, all knowing is but stimuli detected, that which is noticed… with most of that definition happening in the parts of your brain that have no language, only chemical encoding, genetic and evolutionary memory (literal: DNA response over time), and of course, the quiet, ruthless editor otherwise known as the amygdala.
The more neurochemistry and neurophenomology discover, the more the string theorists and philosophers commune, the more cross- and inter-disciplinary conversations occur, the more humans will remember that our commonalities and similarities are only beneficial when juxtaposed by our diverse perspectives and experiences, calmly displayed for understanding.
May the day come sooner than later. It seems we have gotten away from developing the will to understand things. We seem to have confused ‘knowing’ with understanding, as if that is a metaphysically attainable future and we’re missing it only because we don’t ‘know’ enough.
Leaving aside entirely that much of our history and present are spent killing one another over our inability to know to a point of certainty things like, “what is right?” or “what is just?” or even “what is blue?” Though, were we to be blunt, more often it’s far from such lofty queries, isn’t it?
I do not think humans are capable of knowing, only of believing. Tongue firmly in cheek, I admit, I only think this to the extent I can construct a simple logic about it:
The human brain and combined sense organs detect and respond to stimuli.
The human brain and combined sense organs cannot detect all stimuli.
The human brain and combined sense organs do not know what they do not detect.
Therefore, the construct of ‘knowing’ is misconstrued trust in perspective and memory over time.
And belief in perspective over time, however compellingly echoed by others, is still belief.
I do not say this out of some interest in killing the concept of ‘knowledge’, but because it seems we’ll never evolve if we refuse to continually challenge ourselves on what we believe, why we believe it, and what can be readily validated of holistic, systemic human life to bear out and affirm the belief.
To do this, we really must resolve the various dogmas, dichotomies, and divisions between humans.
It is important to our survival as a species. Consider that all human history is a walk along a linear, limited path… and our children walk in our place when we eventually, inevitably, fade.
This being the case, how can we claim “progress” if we are not constantly seeking to better the overall quality of human life?
What could ever be more important, more imperative, than the legacy of humanity, literal genetic code?