Power of the Mind

The mind is a wonderous thing. So we're always told. It can do impossible calculations that modern computers would take centuries to get through, control thousands of different processes and still have time to make dinner. I've always heard that the average person only uses 10% of their brain; geniuses like Albert Einstein, only 15%. What I've also heard, and to some degree experienced first hand, is that the mind can overcome the weakness of the body. Now, for everyday examples, this would be like forcing yourself out of bed when your body seeks at least another 30 minutes of sleep (bet that snooze button looks awful tempting there), or maybe forcing up another repetition of weights at the gym when it feels like you can't even lift your arms. Sounds familiar right? But what about that portion of the body that the mind has the greatest difficulty controlling, the region of the heart?

Yes, I know, emotions don't actually come from our hearts. It's already working hard enough as it is with keeping us alive and our bodies well stocked with oxygen. (I point this out merely because I have a very sarcastic sibling who enjoys taking things much too literally.) But the figurative heart of which the great poets speak, that is the harbor of death-defying feats of love, devotion, gratitude...and life-defying atrocities of hate, anger, and jealousy. Can the great and all-powerful mind truly dominate and control the heart? Can the mind govern the uncontrollable?

This Whole Puzzle

Someone asked me recently if I believed in the notion of soulmates. Oddly enough, I didn't even have to think about it. My immediate response was "No." I went on to use a puzzle analogy, thinking maybe there are some people in this world that we are "meant" to love in some form. By "meant" I don't mean some overarching plan by God or Destiny or Fate or something along those lines; merely that when you meet that person, through some genetic memory or random act, you can't help but fall immediately and helplessly in love with them. My analogy took the form of "You're a puzzle piece. So that means there are several other pieces you connect with. The pieces on the edges and corners probably have fewer options, but nonetheless there is more than just one "supposed to be." Now that I've continued thinking about it, if we consider the whole global humanity as the puzzle, then there really aren't any corners or edges. So theoretically everyone has around the same amount of chances to find that kind of helpless love.

But going back to my earlier analogy. This phrase has recently bothered me. "Supposed to be" most often used in phrases like "if it's supposed to be it will be" or "supposed to be that way" or whatnot. But what does that really mean? Who is supposing that? I guess it's us (people). Or maybe not. Because "supposed to be" presupposes something that has some sort of control over things...Fate? Destiny? Now I personally hold to the belief, mistaken or otherwise, that Fate is a load of bullocks, and that anything that is "supposed to be" only comes around due to hard work on a side's part. Unless we truly are pawns in some superterrestrial equivalent of a chess game, then it is up to us to create "supposed to be." We have the final say in our lives. And I'd rather have a say in something that makes me happy in this life, rather than hope that if I screw up in the next 60 years (cross my fingers) I'll have a "redo."

The Ladder of Good

I recently began Socrates Cafe by Christopher Phillips, and it has awoken my usual dormant quizzical nature. And for some reason, I have been mulling over the concept of Goodness. What is Goodness? Is there an universal Goodness, as in Good versus Evil, or is it merely a social conception that is constantly redetermined? Perhaps this line of questioning was brought on by a recent event in my life...

I remade my acquaintance with a side of me that I had suppressed, mainly because it was a nuisance and an obstacle. It was the nice guy, the good guy, side of my personality. The essential question that has been...not necessarily plaguing or bothering me...just rattling around pretty incessantly...anyway, the question is this: For Good, who's good is more important? Mine or someone else's? In the past, I have generally told my friends that another's good, as compared to my own, should be considered paramount. The issue this philosophy of course entails is not actually getting what you want, which for some (most/all) people poses a great problem. Including myself. What good (pun intended) does it do me to not allow for my own desires to take any kind of precedence?

I personally believe Goodness is subjective, and after examining this case, I believe the Good does not lie in my favor. This of course prompted the question. Good, Right...these ideas are fickle, constantly changing depending on the situation.