Saturday, August 23, 2008

We are what we are exposed to

Heads-up: This promises to be a confusing post :)

We are what we read, hear and experience - basically what we are exposed to. We (can) fundamentally change over the course of these experiences. I'm not breaking any new ground by stating this here.

What I wonder is whether we have control over the change that these 'mental impingements' bring in us. We may know what our reaction would be to a news story about children dying of hunger in a small country, but do we know how it will change our way of life? We may have an opinion about the role of individuality in life, but do we know what a particular 3-hour conversation with someone will do to that opinion?

The simple answer: No. The more interesting answer: Mayyyyybe.

What if we had control over this change? What factors influence this process?

Factors in our personal space:
  1. Mood - happy, melancholic, ?
  2. State of mind - peaceful, stressed, ?
  3. State of life - stable, in transition, ? (maybe this rolls up into #2)
There's no "right" value to these factors btw. The effect would be different when you are happy vs. brooding and melancholic, but it would still be an effect.

Factors not in our direct control:
  1. Style of impingement - book, discussion, experience, ?
  2. Quality of impingement - Well-written and emotionally rich poetry? Passionate discussion partner? Well-written and connected book? Intense and pure (or uniquely mixed) emotion?
However, is there something in our indirect control, which I for one have not realized yet (similar to the Zeroth law of robotics in a sense)?

Can we control what type of literature we read, people we speak to and experiences we have with the conscious intent of gaining a specific insight into ourselves? I'm not talking about engaging a specific person for a specific reason, or reading a particular book. I'm also not talking about the serendipitous discovery of blogs or chance discourses on topics, that happen seemingly at random. I'm talking about "can I control what I imbibe (not just read) or what I listen to (not just who I talk to), based on what I want to gain from the experience?" Perhaps this is a cyclical dependency: if I could do this, I would already know where I want to go, which is the whole point of the experience.

The simple answer: Yes. I choose to read a particular type of literature and interact with a particular type of people.

The more interesting answer: Sometimes, you may need to not read, not meet, not experience something. Is it important to choose what you do not want to have impinge upon you, as it may change you in ways you don't want? Some criteria for this 'impingement exclusion':
  1. You need a deep insight into who you are and what you want to do or be going forward
  2. You are relatively easily swayed by others' opinions and thoughts, and have admitted this to yourself.
  3. You need to be looking for contentment and a path to stable state.
  4. "there is something called too much information", where "too much" is highly subjective, based on insights developed in #1.
If these conditions hold, then you are in a position to be swayed from your path to contentment by the passions and dreams of other - your parents, friend, peers, etc. In which case, is it better to consciously follow the "ignorance is bliss" maxim? Is it even possible if you know yourself well?

Btw, this is not an autobiographical analysis ;). I was reading an article on melancholy, and got to thinking about which sort of people would be comfortable with having fits of melancholy if they engender fits of innovation. We've all seen people struggle for peace of mind while continue to do things that put more pressure on them to perform, leading to a vicious cycle. I wonder if ignorance is indeed bliss in the long term for these folks, or whether everyone should strive for melancholy (as defined in that article). I guess I'm wondering if there's an invisible and indiscernible "meritocracy of the melancholy". I don't want to believe there is, and it is perhaps impractical to even discover it (never say never though ;)) - but I wonder.

I said it would be confusing.

1 comment:

vcd said...

"We (can) fundamentally change over the course of these experiences." --- I do not agree with this. We do not change as a result of these experiences ... we change because we want to. Our so-called "state" is directly dependent on just us and not on the mood, literature, etc. surrounding us and thank God for that else this world would be a very dangerous place to live in :-). Thus "ignorance is bliss" can be completely immaterial (the subject in question towards which ignorance is being claimed being the key).