Term “conscience” entered into vocabulary and remained unchanged and unchallenged for centuries, despite it’s ambiguous meaning. Many traditional cultures don’t recognize division of mind into “compartments”, but nevertheless, western thinking is based on divisions and nothing could remain undivided since Roman’s dictum “divide et impera”.

Dividing mind into sub, non, hyper, etcetera – levels of conscience, has generated infinite sub-categories of analytical thinking, turning knowledge into a maze of cognitive studies, intersected with neuroscience experiments supported by psychoanalytical and psychological efforts to unlock the mind. But, as far as we know, we went only further from the centre, exchanging the map for territory. At this point in time, our knowledge about knowledge is at the zero level, in other words, we don’t know how much we don’t know.

Contributing to this state of affairs is the incapacity of (English) language to translate meanings, as English is predominantly a language of functions (trade, law). On top of this,we have paradigms of our times: rationalism, logic, scientism and materialism. All these systems of thinking generate an impenetrable “speech bubble”, which is resilient to external influences. So to speak, language serves as guardian of our materialistic civilization, protecting carefully developed mode(l)s of judgements.

In order to penetrate through the rationalist barricade, first we have to understand what is conscience. In some sense conscience represents our ability to control our responses and activities. In other words, it serves as a barricade (or better to say a “filter”) that divides inner (personal) from the outer (universal). Also, conscience assists “cognitive interruptions”, or decision-making, therefore supporting doubt, analysis, contemplation, planning, assessment, judging, etc. This way conscience acts as a membrane which protects or serves, depending on circumstances.

A state of doubt is one of the most peculiar behaviours of mind. Non-decisions are easily turned into a lifestyle, postponing every action that may provide change of dynamics. If decision-making is seen as harmful and risky, we might say that we live in the age of uncertainty, distrust and reservation.

Nothing suits this age better than technology. New media generates a sense of permanent ambivalence, leading to paralysis of thinking, i.e., a state of lingering and consuming. Bombarded by infinite possibilities, young people in specific, cannot make any decision without a strong sense of discomfort and loss. Young people often live in the Limbo, never able to cut their way through the maze of possibilities.

Probably the worst outcome of this state of “permanent hesitation” is that it allows the easiest manipulation of mind, which becomes susceptible to influence and control. No wonder, we are only one step away from implants.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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