This week I read the short story "Liking What You See: A Documentary"---(written by Ted Chiang in his collection "Stories of Your Life and Others"). The narrative revolves around a technology that blocks the neural pathways dedicated to evaluating the physical beauty, (or lack thereof), in another individual or even oneself. The proponents of this technology are working to "assist" maturity and promote social equality by discouraging our natural / instinctive proclivity to judge each other based (even in part) on appearance, and, (by suppressing this instinct), turn the tables on exploitation and media manipulation. The opponents in the story are touting education, the freedom to choose, an acquired maturity, a truthful sense of reality, and a reasoned appreciation of beauty; and they are suggesting the possibility of a "new boss" with a constituency that has been physically blinded to the threat and/or reality of continued exploitation and manipulation. These are all reasonable arguments from each faction's foundation of basic beliefs. Amidst the back and forth within the story, a college professor makes the following observation and asks the following question:

"This debate isn't just about commercials and cosmetics, it's about determining what's the appropriate relationship between the mind and the body. Are we more fully realized when we minimize the physical part of our natures?"

There are many (seemingly) good arguments both for 1) sublimating one's physical nature in favor of one's mind and for 2) seeking a reasoned, natural balance. But by including the word "reasoned" am I already sublimating my physical nature? Or, if I exclude the word "reasoned" am I sublimating my mind? It is interesting that in most body / mind debates the division is between favoring the mind or finding a mind-body balance. I have seldom if ever, (at least in my adult life), participated in an argument for unrestricted or widespread physical free rein.

With that last thought perhaps a more equitable approach would be to first work at an understanding of how we might define a natural balance between body and mind, and then determine what a "disproportionate" amount of reason is. Though I am uncertain where this will go, I will first examine truthfulness (because it feels relevant), and then I will look at the beliefs and arguments summarized in the first paragraph. At that point I will assess progress; if any.

Am I able to uphold the integrity of truthfulness within myself if I favor my mind over my physical nature? Or is the truth of the mind a higher order truth than that of the body, thereby allowing (or even demanding) favoritism? In previous written thought I have said,

"Be Yourself, to yourself and to others. And to this end I absolutely believe in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself; you must first know yourself, and only then can you be yourself." (Uninhibited Happiness June 23, 2012).

But I go on to say that complete uninhibited truthfulness is an unattainable Ideal, and potentially dysfunctional; so I can never completely know myself, and I can never completely be myself. But alternatively, if, (as Jean Paul Sartre believed), "Existence precedes Essence" then perhaps I have it upside down. Perhaps I must first be myself in order to know myself. Perhaps truthfulness does begin within my physical nature and perhaps excessive thought (like superficial thought) is delusional thought.

Or perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or...

And perhaps beliefs and arguments are a distraction...

And perhaps the foundation of inner truthfulness is not inner...

I want to look at some of the beliefs and arguments, (from within the story), for and against assisted maturity.

Since both sides argue against exploitation and manipulation, it is a wash. The proponent's claim is accurate, and the opponent's position that there will always be someone in power, able to take advantage, is valid.

... ... ... ... ...

On second thought, perhaps it is the remaining beliefs and arguments that are a wash. Because both sides are championing social equality, (the proponents through technology and the opponents through choice), the methods may be less relevant than any unexpected, unplanned, or unwanted consequence. To this end, perhaps one question we should ask is, "As I work toward social equality, how do I prefer to be manipulated?" In this scenario, those being manipulated and exploited pre-neural blockage are apparently comfortably oblivious; but those who choose to physically block neural pathways have become actively complicit and are potentially subjecting their self to being taken advantage of in other, perhaps less comfortable, ways. Put this way, it becomes a "Trolley" question; expeditious social equality appears to be the greater good, but if I choose "expeditious" I am repulsed by the thought of the personal physical intervention. This also clarifies the conflict in the story as an acknowledgement that we are not pitting mind against body, but rather we are choosing between the midpoint of the spectrum and its far end; balance and sublimation; freedom to choose and conformity; learning from mistakes and learning by rote; difficult and easy.

I appear to be making some progress; I have traveled from body and mind to body-and-mind-balance; but I still have a divide to cross; I have to keep moving; no rest periods; think-action; back-and-forth; inside-and-out; upside-and-down; building the bridge; to-the-other-side; and back; and-again. There.

If asked for a one-to-one-to-one association with the mind and the body in one column, action and thought in a second column, and outward and inward in the third column, I am confident that a very large majority of us would associate mind-thought-inward and body-action-outward. I have spent a Lifetime structuring my beliefs, thoughts, arguments, and actions in this manner. I would like to reconsider.

Instinct is a non-verbal body-thought.
Experience is action interpreted.
My mind is movement; outward.

These elements trip all over each other. Perhaps my Mind requires a fundamental Biota consisting of my Body and Inward and Outward movement of Thoughts and Actions. Perhaps my Mind IS this Biota as one whole.

That would mean that the appropriate relationship between mind and body---the natural balance---is that which exists in any given moment; their relationship is simultaneously ephemeral and inseparable.

And, the foundation of inner truthfulness is not an either/or; nor is it exclusively inner.

And, an amount of reason would be disproportionate if one, in any manner, sublimates any other component of this biota; including one's physical nature.

And, excessive thought that ultimately manifests as action, is not delusional thought; unless one or more of these Mind Biota components are artificially, deceitfully, or forcibly suppressed.

And, I believe that every thought, to some degree, manifests as action in this moment and/or in a future moment.

And, we are more fully realized when we work to know all the elements, and allow them to talk to each other; unimpeded.

And, it will never be easy.

And, we will never be 100% fully realized.

This concept of one super-organism, constantly fine-tuning contrast and balance, does not work against any basic beliefs but rather asks us to listen carefully to the groans and creaks and pops coming from the structure we have built upon this foundation, and from there work toward an uninhibited truthfulness with oneself. An Existentialist can still focus on outward experience. A Buddhist Monk can still focus on inward enlightenment. A Kinetic Hedonist can still focus on the body. An Epistemologist can still focus on the mind. A member of the herd or flock can still focus on following. An individual can still focus on serious thought.

And I, as a serious thinker, must focus on the one whole---the Mind Biota---in an effort to move closer to the unattainable Ideal of Happiness.