Recently, I am reading some stuff based on Eastern schools of thought such as Taoism or Hindu mysticism like Osho. The learning that emerges from them is infinite, although my Western pragmatism leads me to ponder on an extremely relevant concept: time.
The nowadays Western cultural and economic system is based on the dual concept of man based on body and mind. From an early age, we are taught that there has been a natural evolution and the quality that defines us as human beings is the intellect, the mind. Since this point I guess everyone should buy the argumentation (except those who think that defining today’s man as a smart one is a joke, but what we can sum up saying the human being has the potential to be smart).
Thus, we assume that we have a body, with an instinct associated to as a consequence of the evolutionary path, and we have a mind, an intellect that has created everything we know today: culture, politics, economics, philosophy, etc. Everything created by the human being is based on intellect. Let’s go a step further.
Firstly, we had the instinct as a heritance of our past. The instinct, the body is almost infallible. It works even if we lost consciousness. It is so developed, old and mature as a consequence of millions of year’s evolution.
On the other hand, we have the intellect, newer, much more recent, which equals the present. This intellect is not rooted in the experience and tries to find a safe place. The intellect tries to build up a comfortable stage based on philosophies, ideologies, economies, making them the focus of our intellects. It is undeniable that today everything turn around some human being’s created systems such as religions, democracies, economies (let me separate between democracy and economy because you could smartly suspect it is the same concept). And these systems could collapse for the mere fact of being human being’s creations, just being creations of smart people. And within these artificial systems we have introduced instincts through morality, ethics, religion, etc. However, we tried to control instincts through systems created by human’s intellect.
Being more or less critical, we can perceive certain logic in the argumentation. This could seem valid because our human mind and experience turn around past and present. The problem is that the third variable, the future, does not belong to our mind. The intellect tends to be blind and feels uncomfortable with every novelty. Osho quoted: “the intellect always gives an old answer to every new question.”
The future is intuition. It may be that the explanation of this concept is inaccurate because it is inaccurate; it is not created by the human intellect. Intuition is your consciousness, your being, your essence. It is something inherited by the existence. How to find it out? The way is through meditation. But some minds can intuit, understand and believe in it can be experienced. Osho said that life is an isolated house with a river next to, in one side there is the instinct, in the middle there is a bridge you have to cross, and in the other side you can find the intuition. The bridge links the instinct to the intuition, although many people tend to sit on the bridge believing they have arrived at home.
In this existential conception of the future, of the intuition, I find a great parallelism in vogue: the innovation. Not only because I think it is the future, but if we really want to innovate, we have to forget what we currently know. We have to cross the bridge and come up with a real novelty. Osho said once more that “intuition brings sense, shine, joy and blessings.
PD: “The intellect can be one of the most dangerous things in the world if your intuition is not awake.” Osho (1931-1990).