I often forget what it is like to be human. Strange sentence isn’t?
I forget what the norm is and my expectations of people come off as arrogant or ignorant.
I am usually an observant person and I have found that I fluctuate in my “humanity”. On some parts of the year I show more human like qualities and others not so much. So what do I mean by human? I think it will be easier to explain if I elucidate what it means to be less human. Most people are not curious about the world and actively go out to learn things, whether they be humanities, life, or music. People tend to just want to enjoy life and laugh. In my less human endeavors I do not seek to enjoy life but rather just to experience all aspects of it. I find a off-put joy in my experience and learning of different perspectives and wisdom.
I was reminded of the difference between mere thought patterns between the people that surround me. Curiosity is not as crucial to there lives as I expect it to be because I am just merely different. Now, there are times where I display unplanned amounts of humanity and kindness. Although I am not very well known for kindness, there are instances where I surprise even myself.
As an individual that likes to coordinate and plan all things in my control, this is one thing that I seem to have less control over.
theDying psychopath 
Ecstasy? Perhaps with respect to personal progress, though I can imagine the body’s negative feedback system might slowly rob the person of whatever gains or biochemical ecstasy may be achieved unless the personal progress corresponds to triumph (or serious progress) in a particular field. The key difference would (in my mind) be that a relative measure may be eroded over time due people’s tendency to be static in shorter terms – enabling them to see the progress – and fairly flexible over longer terms – to adapt/integrate the progress into an updated self-standard. With an absolute measure, often given by some external marking (perhaps an accolade or something of the sort), the person (or singular people) is not only aware of how far they have come, but can also see what may lie ahead.
Take sports for example. If one person truly excels in one game, they often take up another for a new challenge, but for people that have no desire to do so and reach the peak of their discipline, what is left after smashing records? Setting them. When we’re only measured against ourselves, we have the hardest time expanding our limits (especially if those limits are physical) because (and here I think you may disagree) we have been conditioned for complacency in equilibrium.
We -humanity- have been conditioned to seek stability (consistency) instead of differential constancy. If some mathematical function modelled a real world phenomenon with truly exponential characteristics, the only appropriate way for another corresponding system to “keep up” would be to maintain constancy with the exponential function. That would mean that the corresponding function would need to increase at an exponential rate so that the rate of change of one function would be proportional to the rate of change of the other – as with differential constancy. Now if, like most physical systems, the energy input relative to the performance change was high (i.e. lots more energy for an almost insignificant change in output/measurable characteristics), an equilibrium would likely be reached at the level of “good enough” – words which grate on the hearts of passionate (dare I even say obsessed) people.
Given that your potential (by means of discrete possible paths or options you could choose to produce difference outcomes in your life) increases nearly exponentially with each day (when multiplied by that of each day prior), if you wanted to keep up with all the beneficial possibilities, you might find yourself overwhelmed by the growth of complexity as you explore these options. You might quickly be admitting that a certain depth of exploration is “good enough.” The only way you could keep up with them is if you had some means of proportionally scaling your efforts to match the ever expanding possible outcomes (and if you do, let me know). You can only keep up by choosing the possibilities most likely to give you a desired mid-term outcome.
If you had to sacrifice a limb so that your heart could pump 1.2 times the current physical resources to your brain (thereby making you ~20% more intelligent for the sake of argument), would you do it? Why?
I would instead think of it as an addiction (to knowing/learning/understanding) triggered by the storage of a given factoid or logical inference. One could then revel in the glow of what they’ve found out (to produce some ecstasy). Supposing that, the logical next step (depending on the nature of what has been learned/stored) would be to explore further or re-evaluate. Taking something in any analytical field, the natural answer would be to explore further. So, at least for analytical fields of self-development, I would think the natural answer would be that the ecstasy itself does not prevent further inquiry. Mind you, people in analytical fields need to be able to produce the right combination of creativity, knowledge and intelligence to continue (thereby validating their previous work).
Then again, humans aren’t always rational or analytical. With respect to non-analytical fields of development (whether personal, cultural or global), I find it difficult to say. Permit me a digression to circle back to something resembling an answer. I’m writing the steps in-between in case you see a fault in my reasoning.
If we are wired for survival and our specie’s structure is designed to reduce the individual importance of a person (by having people working in parallel or being slaves to games of economics, violence or lack fulfillment of our basic needs), then anyone who lacks some form of stability (a guarantee to meet minimum standards for actualization) will (or should) divert to a mode of preservation or continuity (of themselves through works or of their progeny). If our labours are applied thus, our relaxation will likely be directed toward repair (necessary to persist) or to making up for what we lack: engagement. In analytical fields, people are generally engaged by reasoning and logic, but in non-analytical fields, people are generally engaged by (what essentially constitutes) less technical reasoning and logic.
Almost anyone engaged in their craft can outline the mechanics of what they’re doing, from sports fans to physicists to farmers, artists and retail clerks. Entertainment is designed to offer a level of reasoning and engagement suitable to it’s target market. For less technical people, more emotional content. For more technical people, greater detail and ambiguity. Even our tailored, chosen methods of relaxation involve letting go of one thing for another engaging subject or experience. We have the strong habit of making up for what we feel we lack by subconsciously consuming vastly more than we need, if only to maintain some form of balance.
Take someone who watches television shows when not working. These shows may making up for a lack of interesting life experiences by vicariously offering a set of fantasies that the viewer may feast their mind on. (There are others that, for their time “off the clock”, actually do interesting things. These people are still engaging themselves with something; however, whether that offers them ecstasy is almost irrelevant because they are making further inquiry.)
The missing link is feeling human. Why would we ever both to inquire further on anything if we didn’t feel human enough to care. If we as a collection of individuals are failing to meet our basic needs, it seems doubtful that we would care about analytical pursuits beyond that which is necessary for survival. Without feeling human, we can’t accept our deficiencies and move past them (i.e. by inquiring further).
As to your original question, I hope the last short paragraph clears that up. If we can’t accept (and therefore can’t acknowledge) the ways in which we lack, our proclivity for stability would keep us from looking at our situation, let alone looking further into what is possible. I propose that we would only be motivated to look into something beyond the surface if it is deemed beneficial to our survival (in whatever form that may entail).
While my response is a bit long-winded, I wanted to try to cover most (if not all) potential facets of your question and I mean to make up for lost time. Regards.
LikeLike
Thank you for your well thought out answer. You have answered my questions, but like all good lines of inquiry, more questions appear.
I shall answer some one my own. Please wait for a follow up post.
LikeLike
Perhaps when you forget the feeling of humanity, it is because it is your natural state, whereby you’re reminded of your humanity when you’re more aware of your differences from the average human.
I think innate curiosity is one of the natural characteristics of humanity. People that are no longer curios have lost the exploring spirit that has lead to our dominance of the earth.
LikeLike
Ah… All that I am is contained in humanity so everything I do is a reflection of the body itself. Poetic indeed.
People have directed their curiosity in the most useless ways. They satisfy their curiosity with social media. Disgusting…
LikeLike
I’m glad you can appreciate the thought.
It stems from a hunger that many possess and few acknowledge. Better are those that gorge themselves on information and personal progress, but they too are still bound to their humanity.
LikeLike
indeed they are so. But-a thought- could this bound be a self-imposed ecstasy to prevent any further inquiry?
LikeLike