Boundaries of Fluidity
Mental fluidity makes life interesting. It provides the ability to grow as a person, discover and enjoy universes inside, and realize them in many ways. But there are boundaries.
In-fluidity
One may speak of a healthy kind of mental inflexibility, supporting consistency over time and workable behavior that the community may appreciate. It gives predictability to how a person behaves towards others. It serves to create building blocks that can be combined with other building blocks to form a society or any organization. However, it comes at a personal cost of mental in-fluidity. An overdose of this leads to depression, psychosomatics, a lack of empathy and Compassion, etc.
In communism or fascism, this process of creating building blocks easily goes into overdrive. Both lack an appropriate check on the downgrading of individual fluidity. Through this, the community may become powerful, at least for a while. The 20th century has shown that this doesn’t last for several reasons. Mainly, in my view, people have a natural inclination toward fluidity and will always revolt against any endeavor to rein it in. This inclination is called the urge for freedom.
The 20th century also has shown how, in such cases, the ‘free world’ can and does gather momentum that appeals to this inclination, delves into the Inner Strength of many, and turns against societies of inflexible overshoot.
Too much fluidity?
On an individual level, too much fluidity can make a person unstable ― a tautology, of course. ‘Too much’ means that the person cannot handle it; therefore, a danger of chaos ensues. The mind/brain may react to this with a psychogenic seizure, as I explain in the scientific ‘Psyche, Soma and Seizures‘, acting as a kind of system reboot ― stabilizing but possibly at a high cost. Further on the road, one may encounter a psychotic insult and a state called schizophrenia over time. You see, no light stuff.
On a social level, too much fluidity is also not acceptable. One way or another, society needs building blocks. Individuals may turn their back on this and ‘let their hair hang loose.’ For instance, they may go and live in small communities where much more fluidity is allowed. They may use mind-altering means in search of even more fluidity. Meanwhile, normal society pulls the reins on most people. Is that good or bad?
Fluidity needs to be earned
People are not cheap robots and shouldn’t be treated as such. We are organisms, not mechanisms. Each of us has immense potential for mental growth, which should be acknowledged ― within the boundaries posed by our mind/brain itself. There is a ‘too much’ that should be respected for viable results. However, one thing is sure: The boundaries are not fixed. They are fluid from person to person and in each person over time.
Thus, mental growth is fine – necessary even for the sake of health and meaningfulness – but it needs to be earned. There is no free ride towards freedom. In my view, deep culture serves the purpose. The ‘free world’ (called liberalism if you like) should take this immensely seriously. Without proper support, relatively little fluidity may already be ‘too much’ for many, which may be felt as a danger ahead.
Societies turn fascistic (including communistic) in reaction to perceived danger.
Time and again, and again each time, one can see that people politically turn to a safe haven in times of perceived danger. This may be outside danger ― ‘them,’ or economic instability, for instance. In many cases, the negative energy also comes from the inside out, being less discernible. The outside danger may even be mainly a projection of the danger inside, which is basically the danger coming from ‘too much’ fluidity. One may then either suppress or support.
Not surprisingly, in outbursts of reigning-in, intellectuals regularly bear the brunt of what is mainly a suppressive reaction of social anxiety. Intellectuals have a tendency to bring more fluidity. Overly anxious people may paradoxically see this as weak and degraded. The intellectuals are usually caught off-guard.
AURELIS = support
The aim of the project is to AUtos-uggest many people towards the RELaxation of inner tension through which they can, with much support and ethical insight, realize a wealth of Inner Strength. This has personal and social consequences.
Need I say more?
Related Posts
Quality of Depth
Most people would agree that ‘quality of depth’ is profoundly relevant to them personally. At the same time, many may disagree about what it entails. It’s a challenging concept. It’s already challenging to grasp ‘human depth’ since subconceptual processing – therefore also the difficulty to conceptually get it – is an inextricable feature. ‘Deep’ itself Read the full article…
Rationality Contra Human Depth
For many people, rationality stands opposite to human depth ― a profound misunderstanding. This includes many scientists ― or even especially the latter. Difference conceptual – subconceptual This is a more relevant distinction. If we put merely conceptual versus merely subconceptual, we can talk rightfully about opposites. Of course, nothing is entirely the one or Read the full article…
Emotions and Consciousness
An emotion is, of course, always important. Yet, there is a whole gradation between ‘superficial’ and ‘deep.’ Deep as being what has more to do with more of you. But what this actually means is quite subtle. [see: “What is ‘Depth’?”] You can be aware of an emotion, but you cannot evoke an emotion with your consciousness alone. Read the full article…