The Effect Of Mind Upon Motivational Responses

With the tool of the Twin Selves it will be quite natural to accurately interpret emotional signals. It will be readily apparent which aspect of self needs the corrective attention. But there will still be only one set of hardwired responses to act upon the two different spiritual directives. Recall that the feedback system compares internal and external worlds to signal imbalances. Whether it be an internal mental sliver, or an external cultural restriction, both will signal a bad feeling and motivate a corrective response. The correction will fall into one of two possible arenas.

There is no question that there will be a signal to make a correction in a view or an action. The system for initiating that signal in clearly in place. The process only requires a commitment to listening with inner detection.

The action can either change the internal realm (the self), or it can change the external world in some way. The imbalance will always be an obstacle of some sort to need-meeting efforts. We just learned that for accurate interpretation of the signal, the mind is considered in the outside realm. But in the response part of the cycle, the mind must be thought of as the inside realm. For mental changes can only be made within the mind; the spirit (the other inhabitant of the internal realm) is unchangeable. External changes are effected to the outside world, generally in responses of approach, fight, or flight.

Herein lies the significance of  free will and our ability to create our own reality. We exercise these qualities with our "minds" and are most in control when we are in a state of action within versus reaction to the "outside world".

Originally, external responses were all that was needed. Therefore, the body was limited in its hardwired responses. But with the advent of mind, came the necessity for a new type of response. Although it is not hardwired, it is easily within reach through rational choice. For mind not only brought the problem, it brought the solution.

Once we can develop the faith that our problems and their solutions are interlinked, we can move more quickly to the resolution of those problems. We can stop regarding ourselves simply as victims of outside circumstances but instead the sculptors of our life experiences.

 

The Right Response

Indeed, since the advent of culture, there has been yet another response that humans often intuitively choose instead of the fight and flight self-preservationary responses--- a self-developmental response. This is a post-mind response that seeks an internal change. This response actively revises the portrait of reality to accommodate new external conditions. It is a mental shift, resulting in a purposeful addition to the individual mind.

The consciousness of human mind is an evolving state, as is the quality of All That Is. Being its image and likeness, human beings can elect to expand to other alternatives which hold the promise of higher development.

We shall call this response "The Right Response." It can be likened to the righting of a sailboat that has listed too far port or starboard. One cannot always fight or take flight from winds of change, but one can always right oneself. This is the internal corrective response, wherein a change occurs within the realm of mind. The right response is, in effect, a learning experience. It is an outgrowth of human mind, and a very necessary one at that.

Using the analogy of the "sailboat", we can consider the "right" response as a course correction which we can elect to make when we receive the feedback feelings which are telling us that we are off our course from where Spirit is trying to steer us. Each of us is equipped with a compass to keep our individual ship of destiny on course. This compass is anchored in Spirit and is an essential part of our being.

Each addition or revision of a mental tool, a belief, idea or piece of knowledge is this right response. Like the fight and flight responses, the right response directly follows emotional arousal when the self is involved (in this case, the Cultural Self or the mind). The term also has meaning in that an internal shift is often the optimal, moral, responsible, and therefore the "right" corrective choice.

There is a form of guidance going on here. It involves putting ourselves in the place of someone else and exercising compassion, possibly. It might involve the practicing of that "Golden Rule" of relating to another as you would have them relate to you.

The root of most human problems lies in the fact that the role and parameters of mind are not considered within the physical defense system. Anything taken into the mind, becomes associated with the self concept and the tools of self preservation. So although a self developmental response is needed, only self-preservationary responses are motivated. Making a right response is exactly the opposite of the motivational impulse, which seeks only to self-preserve. Thus, the reactions of body negate the very spiritual intentions they seek to preserve.

The very act of "fighting" is an action that puts the body in jeopardy. Flight exercises an act of fear and not just limitation but is withdrawal physically and mentally. A response to a situation that reflects a higher form of guidance can transcend both fight and flight consequences and lift the individual into a higher state of being.

For this reason, with the birth of mind, came a corresponding relationship born between learning and pain. Whenever a learning experience is in order, it will signal the threat of self-preservation through pain. This pain can range from mild, almost imperceptible, anxiety to gripping fear. The more of the self concept invested in the limitation, the more powerful the feeling.

So long as we consider ourselves little more than evolved animal life, we will be inclined to perform as such. However, once we accept the fact that we are truly spirit beings operating in a physical/mental environment, we can feel more comfortable in choosing alternatives that reflect a higher state of consciousness.

It should be completely accepted that a small amount of pain will accompany every discovery of the fact that mind needs some fine-tuning. But with automatic responses, the motivation instead is to escape it, to deny it, and defend the parameters of present knowledge. A perfectly human response, yet completely devoid of spiritual intention. This is how the fluidity of mind becomes stifled and limited to certain versions as dictated by external standards. This explains how slivers in both individual minds and The Mind Of Man are allowed to remain, and are actively defended, often to the death.

Those moments of emotional pain, a feeling that what is accepted, proper conduct is not quite right, are the signals which must be examined and listened to, regardless of the "standards" one is expected to comply with. For example, the refusal to take another human life when expected to, would be acting out a belief which suggests current accepted practices are in conflict with a higher spiritual qualities.

This insight is the major way to accomplish the number two task at hand, learning how to avoid self-preservationary responses when they are inappropriate. A small amount of pain is perfectly bearable, even energizing, particularly if the signal is understood while the problem is still small. And the pain should be acknowledged as an indicator of a sliver, or the need to polish or re-cut a gem. Its intensity will be in direct proportion to the lack. With this strategy, the Right Response can be immediately effected and the problem solved. Instead, caveman-like avoidant responses happen, preventing the needed change, and become accepted as an inevitable part of human nature. Certain social codes and assumptions then pop up which perpetuate the problem.

We know these "slivers" as pangs of conscience. They draw the attention of mind to that of a feeling. They guide us to reconsider our thoughts and actions. If we feel totally comfortable with this mild form of guidance, we should act accordingly.

For example, human error has become something to be ashamed of and avoided at all costs. This is contrary to the learning cycle. For it is through the feedback of pain and pleasure that all learning occurs. Mistakes should be greeted with compassion to self and others who make them. They are the simple message that the portrait of reality does not yet match the requirements to meet an adequate level of the human need in any given external situation. Instead of getting out the paints and making revisions, humans often seek to hide the inadequacies and pretend to be perfect. Punishment is often given for mistakes, both to self and others, and this is quite backward. Compassionate guidance should be offered to add the missing knowledge, belief or skill. Each such addition will be rewarded by positive feelings.

Misdirected actions are little more than exercises of poor judgment. Such actions are often based upon basic insecurities resulting from a lack of knowledge of alternative actions. Punishment is the most basic form of corrective action. It is more traditional than practical. It also tends to relieve the frustrations of the punisher which are, in turn, based on a lack of knowledge.

Such pain that accompanies learning should be welcomed and acted upon with right responses as soon as the feelings are detectable. This is an easy task once humans know the difference between thoughts and feelings, and the parameters and goals of spirit and mind. A concept such as "growing pains" should be utilized in which humans realize that without pain there is no growth. Or as the bodybuilders say: "No pain, no gain".

Pain, in any form, should be considered a positive educational tool, an indication of a need for a course correction. We need not punish the ship to alter its course. We need only to develop the equipment to guide it safely and gently through the threatening waters of life.

This is not to say that humans should endure higher levels of pain than this small feeling of personal anxiety we now can call a growing pain. Nor is this to say that making this right response will always be the spiritually intended corrective action. Indeed, there are still very valid reasons for both fight and flight responses-but only under certain conditions and at certain times. We will be discussing these conditions at length, but first, we turn to the result of these automatic avoidances, which we shall call emotional boundaries.

It need not be a case of either/or (fight & flight versus right and light actions). The guidance given here is meant to expand our thinking with greater alternatives, not simply replace one attitude with its opposite.



Emotional Boundaries

Humans have lived for many thousands of years without understanding their own nature. Thus, their emotional system has worked against them in many ways. Most destructive has been the tendency to preserve, when change is spiritually desired. Self preservation and conservatism is always appropriate when needs of the spirit are at issue. But it is never appropriate in the realm of mind. Yet, one merely needs to look around and one can see abundant evidence of incredible efforts to defend cultural knowledge. Everywhere, and in every time, one can witness passionate efforts to conserve that which is actually personally limiting. Such efforts appear externally as acts of communication, persuasion, political activism, violence, and even war, that seek to narrow the freedoms of others in order to validate the cultural choices of some.

There are 'Fundamentalists' in most realms, not just the religious. It is not that this attitude is essentially wrong or bad, it is that without a broader understanding of our spiritual nature, many retreat to the limits of belief that were imposed in formative years - along with the "fear" doctrine that dictates maintenance of the status quo.

For example, nearly every religion espouses to be the one true word of God and that all others are misguided at best and evil at worst. Historical colonialism evidences how some groups exert their power over others and force their choices upon them. The holocaust was an extreme example of cultural ideology enforced as natural law. Yet, in each of these cases, many felt passionate in their beliefs and emotionally empowered to live by them and carry our their dictates. These feelings seemingly guided them to amoral even heinous, actions. This is when feelings can be ineffective behavioral guides.

Although 'colonialism' of the 18th and 19th century appears to have waned, it, in fact, has simply changed form. New economic treaties have begun to spread a financial net throughout the planet. Wealthy nations are creating spheres of influence while keeping the planet's population in a greater state of  dependence through the instituting of 'easy credit' and 'mass consumption'. Through getting people into a perpetual state of personal debt, control automatically follows.

But this is due to a perversion of the natural system. These are those very self-preservationary actions that directly conflict with spiritual intention. These are actions that should have been self-developmental, not preservationary. These are actions that  spring from passion without ration. Such emotions are signaling that the contents of mind are not adequate and should be changed. They signal that a boundary of the mind has been reached, which needs expansion for spiritual expression. Instead, this limitation becomes a defensible boundary of self, and the actions then seek to carefully maintain these boundaries as if they are sacred aspects of self.

There has to be some type of litmus test that alerts us when we are floundering in the "self-preservationary" state, that helps us to make the course correction necessary to get us back on track toward spiritual evolution. It might be when the collective conscience begins to feel less than totally positive about the future, or when the examples of our appointed or elected leaders are such that we feel uncomfortable with them.

These are actually boundaries of mind, but since they are signaled only by emotion, we call them emotional boundaries . It is crucial to understand the tendency to protect and maintain emotional boundaries. It is equally crucial to resist the temptation to do so. It is an easy out, for defending one's ignorance is simpler and requires less effort than actually effecting the Right Response.

"It says in the bible…". As long as we maintain the security of our emotional wombs, we can not expand our potential. Just as nature requires physical  birth at a particular point of development and a mother bird literally pushes its young from the nest, so we can only find true fulfillment in passing beyond the edges of our emotional envelope.  This requires a willingness to take risk. The young take risks because they feel they are immortal. The old take risks because they are sure that they have little to lose.

The concept of emotional boundaries should become a permanent fixture within each individual mind. The boundaries of self should be continuously expanded---never defended. On the other hand, there should be compassion and respect for the boundaries of others to the degree that many diverse choices and levels of personal growth can coexist. But there should never again be the mistake that boundaries of mind should be preserved, nor that the boundaries of some are the correct boundaries for all. The human mind is in a constant state of evolution, as is the Mind Of Man. And this is as it should be in the highest sense. For to limit the expansion of mind is to frustrate the spirit and stymie the expansion of All That Is.

No religious, political, economic or social system came into being out of the mind that defended the status quo. No great work of art, music or sculpture was achieved by someone who was satisfied with that which already existed. It was only after these radical concepts became the norm, that they ended up being defended by organizations and lost the essence of spirit. I believe it was Pythagoras who said, "Organization is the death of an idea".

On the other hand, if the emotional boundary is one due to a spiritual dictate or need relating to self expression, rather than a mental belief relating to self development, then it is a boundary that should be maintained and protected. These are the healthy boundaries of self. These are the boundaries of Spirit, necessary for the expansion of All That Is. These are the minimum spiritual requirements below which humans cannot dip without serious repercussions. Defending them is true self preservation, as the spirit intends.

If our values are spiritually based, we need not and should not sacrifice them for a new idea, unless we are confident that the "idea" will be a compliment and boon to the "spiritual" principle.

But the majority of requirements and limitations that erect defensible boundaries exist in the realm of mind. These should be avoided so that the continuous expansion desired by spirit can be attained. For true and lasting fulfillment, development, and expression , the emotional boundaries of mind should be as vigorously avoided as the emotional boundaries of spirit are to be reinforced.

Probably the most dangerous term in any language is "ism", for once a concept has been labeled with that description, it has become defined and defended with moral authority by the very institutions whose "moral authority" is in a state of decline.

With the understandings of the pitfalls to the emotional system, as well as their corrections, we can now proceed to discuss the number 3 task of reclaiming the emotional sense. This is how to go about choosing the appropriate responses to each of the emotional signals.

Table of Contents