Skip to main content

expanding horizons and letting go: a recurring message

I look up to the people that are able to carry out things lightly
Not that these things don't take hard work and effort
But their trust in themselves that what they are doing matters
The way they are able to gravitate in a certain direction without any initial hesitation

And this is what I lack, I let so much of my judgment in my brain run the course of my life
Instead of letting things be, letting nature run its course

How many days am I filled with thoughts that stunt my motivation
In some ways, it is better to follow your heart, that instinct.
And these messages keep coming back to me through literature and experience

The art of archery requires complete interaction with the subconscious being, letting go of the idea of yourself and trusting your natural instinct.
To be a master of the movement that's required for this art, you need to stop thinking about the target and let your motions dictate the course of the arrow.

Even in neuroscience, there's research that shows that we have very limited conscious control over our movements and our behavior.
So much so that the question of free will becomes a more controversial topic.

So if this were the case, how much of our thoughts actually matter and are necessary? I'm still on the fence with this one. Ofcourse our automatic movements are taken care for us by the subconscious brain. But how much of our voluntary actions and decisions are affected by the thoughts we have about them and the level of reflection that we have?

I've heard stories of people in sport and art being completely present in their craft, not letting unnecessary thoughts guide them. How much of this influences our performance and our presence in the world? What is the most natural form that we are supposed to exist in? A state of reflection/introspection or instinct?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there an emotional brain? Pt.1(intro)

Is there an emotional brain? As much as we like simplicity in models of science, and the locationist view makes things easier for us to understand, research points to the answer that emotions are not localized to one specific brain region or circuit.  The limbic system hypothesis was put forth by Paul MacLean in the 1950s (although some theories led up to this prior such as the Papez circuit). It divides the more deeply fundamental structures with those that are thought to have developed further on in evolution, in ‘higher’ mammals. The limbic system is one component of the triune brain theory that divides the brain up into the neocortex, mammalian brain and reptilian brain. The reptilian brain is proposed to be in charge of responses for survival such as breathing and heart rate. The reptilian brain is called so due to its structures being found also in reptiles. The limbic system is thought to have developed later in evolution and is commonly thought to be the mammalian brain.

history

Sometimes I think to myself whether all of what we are searching for, will be frowned upon in the future, will be laughed at for all of our efforts As this may be some kind of crazy movement created by delusional people. But this shouldn't stunt us from the curiosities and the explorations within the world we are in now. Some beliefs in the past may seem crazy to us now... but this is just humans trying to explain the world from what they see, from the information that we have. And that is the hesitance that comes from scientists making a statement definitive. Because all of this 'truth' may not be so when future explorers look back at our work, But knowing that the reason they stand in their 'developed' position is because we did exploring for   them, into uncertain waters that are clear as ever to them in their present moment.

its like

i have voices inside my head but then i have a consciousness over that voice inside my head that tells me that these are just voices inside my head. its tiring