Fun With Stress 1.3

The Birth of Meaning

Reading time: 5 minutes

Unicorn image: hauteteazedesigns, Jolly Equilibrium & Fun With Stress logos edit: Erik Stout

How is impersonal sensory information transformed into meaningful information which has become part of our personal frame of reference? And why does identical physical input create completely different thoughts, emotions and behaviour in different people? That is where the concept of Individual Programming comes in.

Programming suggests that as soon as an object receives a certain input, it always creates a specific output in response. Take a simple old-school calculator for example. When the calculator’s buttons 1 + 1 are being pushed, that is its input. As soon the = button is pushed, the calculator in reaction will show 2 in the display, which is its output. No matter how many times its buttons 1 + 1 = are pushed (input), the calculator will always give the same response: 2 (output). That is because the calculator is programmed that way and can only be changed when there’s a change in its programming.

In much the same way we can be considered to be programmed objects as well, even though our programming is much more subtle and concealed than that of a calculator. The idea is that every time we perceive a particular input, we will always produce the same output in the form of thoughts, feelings, visceral reactions and/or actions.[1] This is easiest to spot in our habitual and addictive behaviours: when input pushes our buttons and smoking or drinking is already a habit, it’s hardly surprising that our first action will be the lighting of a cigarette or pouring of a drink because of the relief it promises.[2]

As soon as an experience is programmed and has become part of our personal frame of reference, it follows the same pattern as the calculator or addict; when particular input pushes a button, our output in the form of thoughts, feelings, visceral reactions and/or actions will be pretty much the same every time. And since our programming determines for a large part why we become sensitive to particular input but not to other, let’s investigate its two major components: genes and childhood conditioning.[3]

Say genetically there is a predisposition for the art of cooking if we descent from a long line of foodies. Suppose our parents are both chefs and we see them cooking at home with much zest and enthusiasm. Therefore while growing up, we develop an interest in the wide field of food and cooking. When nurtured and encouraged by our parents, there’s a chance of following in their footsteps. In this way, all things food related can become important and thus meaningful. We will probably develop interests in the direction of food and cooking of all kinds, but might not be all that interested in engineering. Then, if we’re standing in front of a magazine rack, titles like “New Taste Magazine” or “Chef’s Special” will be eye catchers whereas “Model Engineer” probably won’t. That means we have positively buttonized everything food-related, so that our attention will be pointed towards it when we come across it.

Naturally this example is an oversimplification of reality, because the amount of variables that influence the development of body and personality (mind) are infinite. To begin with, it’s impossible to find out exactly whose genetic material ends up in our organism. Moreover only by experiment can we discover our interests and passions, and whether our physical and mental traits are more suitable for hockey or chess. In other words, we have to pursue all kinds of interests to find out what comes natural.

Then there’s childhood conditioning, which is the result of our upbringing and the environment we grow up in. Let’s start with the latter because it makes a world of difference to be born a blue collar Smith or a white collar Rockefeller. Right after our birth, sensory information from the outside world begins to be perceived. Witnessing our parents being worried all the time to make ends meet, will make us value money a lot different than coming from a rich family. Being born into an environment with very strict rules and behavioural codes makes it difficult later in life to be open towards people with different ones. Every family, group and society has its own systems of belief and norms and values, and will try to impose as many as possible onto a new child to carry on the torch and preserve the group. For a child growing up in the Smith family, anything money-related will most likely become important and meaningful; for a child growing up in the Rockefeller family, probably anything power-related will become important and meaningful.

Finally there’s our upbringing or the way in which we are treated and educated when young, especially by our parents. What becomes meaningful for us is not determined so much by what they tell us, but much more with what we see them do; particularly the one with the dominant personality of the two. If the father has the dominant personality and he daily makes many misogynistic remarks, there’s a good chance a son will pick up misogyny if that brings approval from dad (and thereby the idea of acknowledgement, maybe even pride, and often misplaced for genuine love). Misogyny will therefore become important and meaningful for the son.[4] If the mother has the dominant personality and is overly protective, a child can develop the conviction that she is by default dependent on someone else to take care of her. Then as a grown-up the necessity of having someone other than herself as caretaker will become very important and meaningful, and she’ll do everything in her power to make that situation a reality.

Naturally this also works the other way around. If we see our parents really enjoy cooking and preparing nice meals in the kitchen, their sincere enthusiasm is being picked up by osmosis, and most likely we want to join in the cookery by ourselves at some point. Any activity that we see our parents carry out with candid zeal and gusto will most likely become important and meaningful for us, especially when they take us by the hand and educate us in their craft.

Now that we’ve covered sensory information as a form of physical input and explored how that is being transformed into our personal frame of reference, in part 1.4 we’re going to discuss two more types of input: physical input coming from inside our body and mental input.

For now,
Jolly greetings!
Erik Stout

[1] Feelings in the sense of output are considered emotions, like anxiety, ecstasy, anger and grief; visceral reactions in the sense of output are considered involuntary bodily reactions like increasing heartrate or breathing rhythm for instance.

[2] Any action that we use to distract ourselves from ‘feeling bad’ eventually only adds to the over-all bad feeling.

[3] Our programming seems to be very much a matter of nature and nurture.

[4] Groups of male students are still often heard making misogynistic remarks, particularly in student associations. It is my conviction that these kids do not come up with such remarks out of nowhere.