State of Mind

Only the Like Knows its Like

Only the like knows its like. – Porphyry

These were the words of the above mentioned post-classical Greek philosopher. In the beginning, the thoughts that came to my mind were – “How do you define like? What constitutes a similarity of likeness?”
To me, my thoughts conveyed that as I used to ‘understand’ people’s actions and reactions, I would know that they are one of ‘us’. Like us. I would know who would react in what way by observing how people moved, how their arms swung, in what sequence their feet turned around, whether they would tilt their head back carelessly at an angle while laughing or whether their eyes would still be on the other person while laughing; whether they would observe another person coming near them without staring at him or her. It would matter a lot to know how skilled they were in the art of deception, for in the game of espionage that was all that mattered.

At a superficial level, overcoming the initial paranoia, likeness meant whether a person has gone through the same experiences as I have. It encompassed all the conditioning of my mind, how I had altered its development consciously, how well I respond, how tactfully I respond to a given situation, the communion between two minds and hearts depends upon the likeness between them, the value systems they share, their perception of life and their vision towards its development. Only the like people can actually know their like completely. Others would merely stand in awe, disgust, confusion, or disbelief, and only the like would be disillusioned.

At the lowest level, there would be those who are completely heartless, surviving, hunting for their food, foraging through the jungles of life. Then there would be those who would have feelings, emotions, and thoughts, of guilt. As we progress upwards, there would be those who would try their best to help out other living beings in the world, retracting back to their haven when they feel necessary. Most of us are at this level. We are doing our best to make the world a better place. But now, this hierarchical system is another illusion, for there are no well defined boundaries between the levels. People act and react to each situation at different levels. They have all at times been at the lowest level and at times the highest level. We cannot maintain a strict ordering of life. It is more of an interconnection, a networking between different elements.

In our case of likeness, this would translate to beings having similar experiences, and also experiences that are poles apart. The like cannot always be categorized into the like. There is no way to define whether people are like or not. There is always a probability of occurrence of likeness, a basic necessity in terms of compatibility with which the communion takes place. The sharing of thoughts and feelings can come only when the individuals build up on their likeness. It is this basic foundation that is built once the beings come together and interact, inter-network, consciously alter their perceptions, their beliefs, their values. How they apply these learnt principles, which basically govern their actions and reactions is how I would now define likeness. For a person who doesn’t know the experiences another has been through is unlikely to understand them. And whence - only the like knows its like. Only when the other goes through the same experience, or understands it, does s/he go through the ubiquitous ‘paradigm shift’. The unlike then become the like. And a new level of interconnectivity between different beings is spawned. This level does not contain, again I stress on it, does not have a hierarchical nature, for the two beings were at variedly different levels earlier. It is a new relationship that is forged, a new connection that is borne out of the situation. This connection then grows towards more ‘likeness’ till a point may come where it breaks away.

The connection may break away due to many reasons. Implicit in this, is the different perceptions each has encountered by building upon the unlike experiences prior to the making of the connection. But this connection is never completely broken, for the two people have already built upon their likeness. Each has come to a point where each needs to forge a new connection, have varied experiences in order to continue building up on the likeness. They may forge a new connection with each other, to continue building up the likeness, or they may not, but at the point the connection was broken, the like will still know its like.

The like, then, may start to categorize the ones with whom the connection has been broken, on the basis of the unlike. And there enters all the illusions of being different, unlike, not same, good, bad, to subjugate the unlike, to destroy the unlike. This state may or may not come in each, for each would have different (but like) experiences. But the like who do not go into this state would have one experience in common – they would have experienced the failure of categorization of the unlike based on their actions and reactions, which come from their experiences. This, however, is not merely an experience, but is an understanding that we should have been talking about all this time. The experiences are not the true teachers of life; rather, it is the observing of those experiences that really shows us the true path. Learning from those experiences can come only by observing the outcome of those experiences. However, the way we react, or the knowledge we infer, what we learn from those experiences is controlled by our own perceptions. And each person has different perceptions. But the like have something like in their perceptions. And that is how only the like know its like.

It is the perceptions that actually guide the like in search of the like, and how only the like will know the like. However, these perceptions, the inference from observations, and the experiences themselves are not based on a level of hierarchy. The varied inference from observations comes through the varied experiences the like and the unlike have had, and consequently, the perceptions change according to these inferences. The varied perceptions then change the inference from observations of future experiences, which themselves change according to the previous experiences, their inference, and consequent change of perceptions. The three are tightly interlinked in a network, and there is no inherent level of hierarchy.

Those who are then alike have become so only because they have something alike in their perceptions, the consequent inference of observations, and the varied experiences they have. Only when the perceptions have become like from the varied experiences, can the like know its like, and only the like knows its like.

Posted by puzli at July 3, 2005 04:43 AM