Perhaps you’ve heard about Bill and Pam Farrell’s big reveal about men and women having the minds of waffles and spaghetti, respectively. I have never read their book myself, but certainly the concept is intriguing. They proposed that men compartmentalize their life, mind, and conversation in large topics with rigid boundaries; while women on the other hand tend to lean toward the interconnectedness of all things and jumping from one noodle to another can be simple and instantaneous.
While I most generally agree, this clearly does not map all the intricacies of the human mind, but rather specifies and cultivates understanding on how gender can impact such a thing as one’s mind. My own mind manifests it’s habits on a much more complex spectrum. Perhaps there could be fifteen or twenty points forming a shape that can map tendencies rather than two. Different mind metaphors could be swiss cheese, cirrus clouds, a river bend, or perhaps even a beer. Like a video game character’s skills and abilities graph, we would each be assigned a shape that fills in the overall map based on how close we get to each cornerstone tendency. Whatever the map would form, I am sure we would all have quite intriguing polygons to study.
Although, this all assumes that the mind is something that can be measured. I would argue that after plotting tendencies on a graph, we would have created more of a character summary or behavioral analysis; both of which revealing effects rather than the sought after causes. Considering that there are 34 definitions (19 as a noun) for the word, it is no surprise we are unable to truly understand it. How can one concept be studied if it must be done so from 19+ perspectives? Generally we as a species have a hard time juggling even our own mind as we build up or maintain simple out of context intolerances towards others. As simple a misunderstanding as how a friend could unfathomably enjoy the flavor of an artichoke, while also accepting I may enjoy them incredibly. Even such a shallow judgement shows our incapability of accepting two perspectives; Or arguably, two truths. Here are a couple of the definitions below:
mind [mahynd] n: 1. the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc. 2. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities. 3. intellect of understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence.
Each of these first three seem to me extremely vague and mysterious, showing themselves to correlate with how one might define a soul. Some lean more philosophically, while some more scientifically, or psychologically. Immediately I collect that perhaps the answer is that we don’t know, but such vagueness is an attempt to define something undefinable. Thirty-four definitions is perhaps something that could arise from trying to define something that may not exist. “Perception is reality, and where there is perception there is deception. We can use this to our advantage.” That is a lesson I have learned and have repeated frequently in the last months, in the process to discover how truth and reality are all relative to the perceiver or the individual. I like artichokes, and you do not.
I could let neuroscience tell me that my ability to enjoy an artichoke has to do with my unique balance of physical components to this experience. That my particular papillae are operating chaotically; or that if I am older, my sensory cells that have stopped working in the middle of my tongue, hard palette, and mucous membrane; leading my artichoke experience to an enjoyable reaction. Since smell is correlated with taste perception, perhaps whether or not my olfactory neurons bond specifically to the odor molecules of an artichoke could determine my appreciation.
However, I would like to remove the emphasis from the chemical reactions in my body or physical perception, and place it in my belief that artichokes are delicious, and that you do not believe so should never cause a moment of opposition. I will give credit to my MIND, and since my mind’s definition is stretched over so many different ideas, This seems a little grandiose a notion for something like enjoying the taste of an artichoke, but instead it may seem appropriate for more social contexts such as tolerance and understanding. Using an artichoke as a moment out of context can help define how our MIND can be molded and utilized to make this world a better place.
So what are we waiting for? We need to DEFINE our MIND so that it can bring us stability and peace; so that this solid ground can root for and curb our experience and perception; so that it can pave the way for peace, acceptance, and cultural growth.
