The Solitary Perception

A discernible pattern rests in the myriad parables known across the span of history, almost to the extent of prosaism. That pattern commences with portents of the hero as an embodiment of latent potential, both physiological and psychological. We know intuitively that he is destined to be led, by the conspiratorial forces of the cosmos, to the path of greatness. Each challenge posed in the course of the voyage on this path is an opportunity for the effulgent manifestation of his latent potential, and acts as an epiphanic stepping stone towards resonance with his Atman. With him having thus been aligned with his purpose in full measure, victory is the inevitable culmination of his parable.

Our mirth in instant light of such culmination may if only transiently deviate us from that objective assessment which would render the hero’s parable a metaphor for the human brain. As the epiphany of self-potential dawns upon the hero, so does the sentiment of esteem dawn upon the human brain with discoveries pertinent to itself, and with exposure to a viewpoint which the brain may thus far not have conceived of. We differ from our fraternal humans at the genetic level, notwithstanding such similarities as typify us all as constituents of the same race. We could, accordingly, never achieve homogeneity of thought in thorough measure. It is in consequence of this crucial fact that the creation of society warrants a process of free expression, which when replicated societally, extends to us its munificence by augmenting our perspicacity.

What we often minify, to our prejudice, is contemplation by ourselves, with ourselves. In the best of solitude and least of sonance do thoughts coalesce into coherence, and articulation into elegance. Periodic solitude imbued with rumination is a potent way to develop astute insights into a subject. A thoughtful mind, honed through years of readership, writing and circumspection, is the incendiary fire that decimates the devil’s workshop.

We regard the advent of social media quite aptly as the commencement of an era of multitudinous distractions and a profusion of information. No era thus far has witnessed the remarkable ability of one’s communication with another, subsistent though one may be at a location diametrically opposite to that of another. Yet, as is the providence of a complex system to approach its natural equilibrium, so must, in order to equilibrize a positive, must there be a negative.

Mankind is apt to pose itself, as a matter of forthrightness, a question as to the purpose served by social media, other than the metastasis of self-conceit. The observations I proceed to make have long been expressed, but we are given to not pay heed to sagacious counsel. Not overly different is addictive social media use, notes the Addiction Center, from any other substance use disorder. The self-same symptoms, albeit not exclusively, have been observed (quoted literatim):

• mood modification (i.e., engagement in social media leads to a favourable change in emotional states);
• salience (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, and emotional preoccupation with social media);
• tolerance (i.e., ever increasing use of social media over time);
• withdrawal symptoms (i.e., experiencing unpleasant physical and emotional symptoms when social media use is restricted or stopped);
• conflict (i.e., interpersonal problems ensue because of social media usage); and
• relapse (i.e., addicted individuals quickly revert back to their excessive social media usage after an abstinence period).

The percipient psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson notes (corrected for semantics):

We do not really understand much how people communicate, period. One of the things that psychologists do know is that if there is any distancing between you and a person, say for example while one is inside a car, one is much more likely to act in an impulsive and hostile manner. One of the things that seems to mitigate against that impulsive hostility is the mechanisms altogether that kick in when one is face-to-face with someone else. So, those might be mechanisms that are associated with innate sympathy, for example, which regulate one’s behaviour. For most of the time in evolutionary history, we were interacting directly one-on-one with someone and that seemed to work out quite well.

With regard to Twitter, an article once showed what words needed to be in such content as was most likely to be retweeted, and they were almost all high-level negative emotion words. You thus have a large pool of people, and it might be that only the person who is in a bad mood and is irritated that day, or is chronically like that, or by disposition like that, let’s say, and who is specifically angry about something that they saw right then, is likely to tweet. It gives us a tremendously skewed view of the consensus, because should a mob of a hundred turn up at your house, you assume that there are more than a hundred people mad at you; they are representative of a much larger group. On Twitter, you cannot say if the thirty-odd people who say snarky things about you, especially anonymously, are representative at all, and they are likely not. The narrow bandwidth at 140 or 280 characters might also be something that really facilitates angry, impulsive responding. We do not truly understand this psychologically.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram produce, so it has been observed, the same neural circuitry that is caused by gambling and recreational drugs to keep consumers using their products as much as possible. Little would such studies surprise them who in full alertness are in knowledge of the remarkable similarity between social media, and the duplet of gambling and recreational drugs, insomuch that both stimulate the reward and gratification areas of the human brain. We are thus aware of the reason behind a metaphorical inundation of the brain with dopamine. It is a reconfiguration of sorts for the brain, which, thus far acclimatized to reward with demanding effort, is now exposed to a cornucopia of rewards — the likes, retweets, comments — with minimal effort.

A development of particular interest to psychologists and political scientists is the increasingly post-modernist and neo-Marxist milieu of maturation bequeathed to children by their parents. There arises in consequence of the amalgamation of post-modernism and neo-Marxism a value-neutral generation, which regards the idea of objective truth as anathematic and which, in its unceasing hunt for purpose, embarks on a sacrosanct mission to combat the gravest injustices in society; such, in particular, as are deemed the culmination of State action; the claims of institutionalized racism being a credible instance. Indeed, the endeavour for justice is commendable, inasmuch as the progress of no one must be subject to arbitrary impediments of race, religion and suchlike primordial identities. Specious, however, would such endeavour be in the absence of values. Infinite though the potential interpretations of reality may be, there subsist some such which may be deemed objectively true. As Gregg Hurwitz notes:

What a terrible, beautiful thing we ask of our agents of change — of our saints. To carry on their shoulders the full weight of the law and to prove the fortitude of their morality by carrying it and carrying it until the sense of injustice and outrage from their fellow citizens becomes undeniable. Until a new awareness dawns and the injustice itself crumbles away, lifeless and defunct, through lawful means.

The need for a higher purpose is a very real, very positive and very compelling need, and we would be remiss to minify the potential of such a compelling force to traverse untold vastitudes. Little is it a wonder, then, that nearly every aspect of life has been the object of political debate.

Is it not but natural, therefore, to be desirous of respite from the din of atonality? We would be apt to view solitude as the most convalescent tonic; however, a prudent distinction between solitude and lonesomeness need be made. The former has positive connotations as a matter of convention, while the latter is indubitably problematic. The current state of affairs may serve only to explicitize this crucial distinction.

Lonesomeness is in literal terms a negative phenomenon. It is a response to isolation that may be either perceived or veracious; the apt state of action in either case being the active pursuit of social connections. But of greater essence than the social connections themselves is the quality of such connections, which by way of its aptitude begets the evolution of mere social connection to social capital. To no conscionable person desirous of pulverizing his lonesomeness would discreditable company be any more propitious than his lonesomeness itself.

Myriad indeed are the factors that contribute to the metastasis of lonesomeness, but that social media could be one such factor is not well-known and necessitates elucidation. Use in itself, of course, scarce suffices for that purpose; however, excess use may certainly be an integrand in the consortium of integrands that is the cause-effect relationship. Dr. Shainna Ali notes:

Researchers at the University of British Columbia found that even seemingly mild distractions from a buzzing phone could cause individuals to experience a decrease of present enjoyment. For example, if you’re at a social gathering and impulsively grab your phone as you feel the notification vibration, even if you do not continue to open the app, this brief moment could cause a feeling of disconnection with others present at the gathering.

The Center for Humane Technology highlights that we may experience a fear of missing out that causes us to compulsively check for updates. The persistent need to log-in can inhibit users’ ability to relax and replenish. Lack of adequate rest could cause individuals to become susceptible to mental health risks. Individuals may become glued to their devices to avoid feeling unaware of current events and feel disconnected from others. It is also possible to encounter unwanted updates that prompt feelings of isolation. For example, if someone finds a picture of their loved ones gathered for an event to which he or she did not receive an invitation, seeing this update could trigger the individual to feel excluded.

Exposure to idealized images on social media can also elicit envy. Falling prey to social comparison, individuals who were otherwise content could develop a sense of dissatisfaction by labeling themselves as less successful, happy, or adventurous. In a study of individuals who utilize Twitter and Facebook, participants who admitted to going out of their way to seek validation (e.g., likes) and to portray a perfect profile were more likely to suffer from low self-esteem and be less trusting of others. If an individual is focused on minimizing their flaws and concerns, they may lack the ability to relate to others about actual life experiences. Also, their own knowledge of their altered reality could cause someone to feel fraudulent and disconnected. Finally, their obviously skewed profile could cause others to feel a lack of connection as well.

Solitude, on the other hand, is a result of choice, and is a recuperative period of time that paves the way to self-discovery. The engagements of quotidian life may stultify a thoughtful view of what we desire. A philosopher of the corporeal may reflexively dismiss the significance of contemplations of one’s purpose and identity, and may out of an erroneous notion of wisdom scorn at the question, “Who am I?”; erroneous because “that which in I find utmost resonance” is an integral and often sufficient component of the question, “Who am I?” To cite an instance, the discovery of resonance in the process of writing is cathartic to the scripturient. But even generally, solitude is conducive to mental peace. The world witnesses cotemporally such frequency of connections that we are, often protractedly, deprived of that period of solitary self-assessment which permits the manifestation of our self-dependence. We may often be surprised at the latitudinous amount of activity we could accomplish all by ourselves.

Little appreciated is the humbling effect of solitude; certainly so for a preponderance of the populace. But supposing one is a seeming luminary, one could nonetheless, upon transcendence of conceit, ensconce oneself in circumspection. One could bear oneself as a spirit gallivanting in our impossibly large world. And then, one may present oneself to one’s kith and kin, only to arrive at the disquieting realization that they have moved on. Indeed, many a man, subsumed by the delusory waves of grandeur, have arrived at that saturnine terminus while yet being incarnate; far from being spirits. That realization serves first to cleave one’s tranquil circumspection, and then to actuate that humility which renders it essential to one to invest in courteous relationships; premised not on power but on compassion.

Further, there is the indisputable connection with wisdom that solitary time permits. Circumspect, one could meticulously assess one’s relationships, both at home and at work, and augment one’s dexterity in terms of interactions. One could, for instance, perpend upon the motivations that drive unprofessional workers to be so, or more exigently, the subtleties of character that drive one’s superior to assume an air of condescension. One could in consequence develop a judicious symphony of acquiescence and resistance; a symphony unlikely to offend, while simultaneously preserving one’s sense of self-worth, and comport oneself accordingly the following days. Solitary time permits such critical analysis.

Solitude does not necessarily presuppose a thoughtful period of time. Quite minified is the period of simple, unconstrained existence; being not an employee or a familial someone but simply oneself. That period is greatly curative. This assumes particular essence with regard to familial relationships. It is not merely the connections ayond the homestead from which one must periodically retreat into solitary existence. So often unreasonable can familial interaction be that it is often exigent for us to solicit lone time in its absolute. For me anecdotally, it is in the tranquil fifth hour of anti meridiem, when I arise, and when others are yet asleep, that I find utmost solitude. The power of books to lure is inexplicable. But for others, it may involve, as it does in case of Jennifer Haubrich, “a stay for the weekend at a monastery that requires silence for over 12 hours a day.” Nor is it doctrinairely integral to solicit tranquil intermissions; one may as well opt for adventure sports away from the town, away from family. Contrary to reflexive apprehensions, such solitude leads family members to be more courteous towards one’s individuality, and when done by all family members, every member of the family values the family unit.

Polemical though it may sound, I would also recommend students to sporadically skip university lectures and devote that duration to their individual recreational pursuit. This is particularly helpful for those gifted with the desire to write, for one could perhaps be engaged in a lecture and nonetheless work on typing an essay in the background. The pandemic era has afforded us profound ease of infrequent absence; infrequent given that no student cognizant of his priorities would ever desire to be persistently absent. The typical university schedule is understandably arduous, given the myriad of subjects and increasing specialization of the subjects. It is scarce productive to be objects of daily hour-long discourses. Weekends may often be consumed by the necessity of perusing the subject material or by the completion of assignments. Such sporadic absence, therefore, could be felicitous in revivification.

It would thus not be hyperbolic to conclude that greater and more qualitative solitude ought to be our pursuit.