Having been in a particularly contemplative mood lately, I wished to share a few of my thoughts. While not immediately related to typology, I have a feeling they will tie in somewhere.
One thing I’ve been contemplating is how and why we consider some states of being (e.g., moods and emotions) characteristically positive and others negative. Assuming there is some degree of consistency in what we deem positive and negative, which certainly appears to be the case, then there must be some sort of objective reference criteria for making evaluations.
It appears that each individual entity in the universe (or what Ken Wilber calls “holons”) has its own set of criteria for making evaluations. Even the simplest of organisms judge and perceive, opening themselves to what sustains them and closing to real or potential threats. This suggests that certain “mental” capacities are inherent to all life, capacities which seem to increase commensurately with increasing physical complexity.
Our next question is why organisms need to make distinctions and evaluations at all. It appears that the purpose is to ensure the survival of the organism and to maintain an “optimal state.” I find this interesting because comparing an actual state to an optimal one seems very much a mental act, even if it were to occur in what we would consider an unconscious fashion.
What then, is the nature of this optimum state? It seems that every organism is concerned with both growth and balance. Balance must be maintained internally (i.e., “homeostasis) and externally. The criteria for maintaining optimal balance, as well as directions for future growth, are to some degree hardwired. We are not blank slates. We are born with certain preferences and dispositions. With that said, organisms must also be capable of adapting to changing circumstances. To maximize the odds of survival, the criteria for optimal living must be constantly modified to better reflect the demands of the environment. This seems closely related to our concept of “learning.”
Let’s summarize what we have covered so far:
1) We classify our states of being as positive or negative; we make judgments.
2) The ostensible purpose of making evaluations is to maintain an optimal state of growth and balance.
3) The criteria for these judgments is both learned and hardwired.
My next concern is the specific relationship between 1) and 2). Namely, I suggest that there is a relationship between what we consider “positive” states and what is optimal for organismal growth and balance. In other words, there seems to be a built-in reward system for thinking and behaving in optimal ways. Of all the positive states we experience, that which seems most desirable, important, and comprehensive is that of unity. I will discuss the concept and experience of unity, as well as its relationship to optimal living, in my next post.
