In my previous post I contemplate why our desire to interface with other bodies exists in substitution of — or, more accurately, on top of — our souls’ desire to interface with other souls. Upon thinking more on the topic, though, I began to ponder the definitions of the terms ‘body’ and ‘interface’ in this context.

For the sake of argument, let us assume the following two hypotheticals to be true: firstly, your ‘soul’ is defined as the extant reality and/or presence of your consciousness and mental faculty endemic to the human-being (rational thought); secondly, the mental faculties not endemic to the human-being (such as desire for comfort, avoidance of pain, and instincts to eat, drink, and procreate) are the product of the body and not the soul.

Keep those hypotheticals constantly in mind as you consider what I have to say.

You are a soul. You inhabit a body. Your soul inherently desires to interface with other souls. Your body is the singular mode in which you can interface with those souls; your body is your interface. Speech is an extension of the soul through the body.

Your body has its own desire to interface with other bodies, and this desire is separate and not-related from the desire of the soul to interface with other souls. Chemicals inside your brain (body) such as serotonin, dopamine, cortisol, estrogen, and testosterone all mix together inside your body to form a concoction of emotion that many people confuse with the soul. Your chemical emotions are not your soul; even the beasts possess chemical emotion. Your desire to interface with other bodies by mode of sexual intercourse is not your soul; even beasts possess this desire.

Your consciousness has a desire to expand upon itself, often through interface with other forms of consciousness (other people). This desire can also be partially fulfilled through the acquisition of knowledge. When this desire is fulfilled through a combination of knowledge and socialization, you become self-actualized (or, at the very least, one step closer to self-actualized).

The human is built around the concept of the interface. Every small ecstasy in our environment — perception of the extant reality of beauty in any form whatsoever — is our soul interfacing with our environment through the body. There is even an interface delay between the two — the time it takes electron-impulses to travel through our nervous-system.

Now, I pose the question that I’ve been pondering for the past week: why is the human-being designed to interface? For what purpose, and with what intent?

Keeping in mind the hypotheticals I gave earlier, consider the following. The human-being is a social animal. Our soul is inherently tied to our body; as the body matures, the soul matures. This is evident in the fact that babies possess a lower faculty in rational-thought and arguably a lower level of self-awareness (consciousness) than an adult.

Again, I must assert that the human being is a social animal. We possess individual-intelligence, but also collective-intelligence. Society and culture are but emergent properties of that collective-intelligence.

The benefit that an individual soul gains from interfacing (presumably through social interaction) is shared by both or all members who participate in this interface. Apply the same logic to every such interface that occurs within a collective, and the benefit is shared by the entire collective. We interface not solely for individual-gain, but for collective-gain.

Souls interface for collective gain, but are capable of modes of operation that violate this principle. For example, imagine a person having a heated disagreement with another person over a political or social opinion. While the ideal mode of operation in this form of disagreement is to simply discuss your opinion with dispassionate regard for the other person’s viewpoint, the chemicals in our brain (body) make it much easier to bash the other person’s viewpoint or the person themself. This is disadvantageous to the collective as it puts ‘distance’ between you and the other person and provides a short-term (and ill-deserved) emotional benefit to one individual while providing emotional-detriment to the other individual.

I suppose the one take-away from this thought process — especially the paragraphs immediately prior — would be to endeavor to (when in argument) operate in a way that’s beneficial to both you and the other person/the collective as opposed to a way that only provides benefit to yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s