People identify with causes, but why?
I ask this as an avenue towards discovering the real reasons why we take issue with things in the world that we cannot control.
I would venture to say that any issue we hold to be important to us personally in which we have no control over is an externalization of an internal
conflict that we have yet to resolve. Anything past a simple and passing curiosity is a good example of this.
why do we look to global issues of world peace or famine as something personal? We see in them something that we internalize and generate emotion to.
The question is what is that emotion really and what purpose does it serve?
If we were to have a conflict within us of harmonizing the conscious mind with the subconscious mind, that was too hard to deal with, we might instead
translate our struggle to change our mind´s reality so as to conform it to our expectation of ourselves. That in turn into a struggle to make reality
conform to our expectations for the world there by rationalizing our behavior and allowing us to continue functioning as normal. In the process though
we might ascribe to ourselves identity that is not our own, but rather a projection of the world modeled in our expectations of it.
In an effort to break down the process let us examine world hunger. While it is not my express concern since I am not asking for us to analyze why we
take up the cause of world hunger, but rather why we take up causes in general and identify with them. The following is an example of many possible
from infidelity, to politically charged ones. So to make it clear, I have no issue with ending world hunger. I only wish to examine the mental process
that assigns identity to a cause, in this case world hunger.
If when you pass a homeless man begging, you must avoid eye contact because you know you will not give him money, you might then in a casual
conversation become suddenly very passionate about world hunger. You might then justify your individual position of "world hunger is a crime
perpetrated by so so". I /we would /should do such and such. Though vocally to others in the conversation you are establishing a response that you are
seemingly in control of but admittedly powerless to do anything about. You justify it internally to your own psyche as the impotence of that internal
struggle created by your conscience seeing you well fed and others not so.
On a conscious level guilt is easily handled in this situation. "I cannot blame myself for eating well, and that African child not so" " I am not in
Africa" or whatever such rational reason we can think of to cancel out the natural feeling of discomfort in seeing another human being starve.
subconsciously things are less organized and so being more volatile are more damaging. They are more so conflictive when the reality they occupy is
closer to your own immediate reality.
The emotion we feel when we get passionate about "world hunger" is really our subconscious internalizing the external worlds problems in an effort to
make a loose connection to our own internal conflicts.
The guilt of not literally picking up a hungry person you see in your immediate reality and feeding him until he is healthy provokes the feeling of
discomfort in looking at him and walking away. It subsides consciously by logic but is magnified subconsciously where logic does not hold ground.
We know consciously that there is nothing we can do, internally we do not make that distinction. So instead of provoking a conflict expressible in a
controllable situation like the homeless man in from of you, the mind externalizes it into an internal conflict with the greater reality around you
that is out of control.
You can't not literally pick up the worlds homeless and feed them until healthy. This subdues the subconscious by establishing a universal "truth"
that the hungry and homeless cannot be picked up and fed. So you're not doing so in your reality you control is the same as not being able to do so in
the greater reality you do not control.
Balance is restored but in the process we mistakenly take up the cause of a stance against world hunger because after balance comes the resolution of
the discomfort that still remains, though now understood apparently. We identify with it as something personal when it is simply the rationalization
of the subconscious finding an explanation to your conscious decision that you are impotent to fix that homeless guys situation, even though you want
edit on 26-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)