Before beginning such interesting, complex and strange argument, it would be better to read what said more competent individuals than me (and I suppose than more of the readers) about our true nature. Permit me the freedom to chose between these great individuals one that was- for my subjective opinion- one of the most simple and sincere, and this quality made the explanations of complex argumets shown in his writing more accessible to the large public of readers:Alfred Orage. In fact, in his essay ”Doing as one Likes” he explained:” There are two people, so to say, in each of us,- one derived by heredity from our parents and the other composed of all the influences we have received from the society in which we happen to have been born. By heredity we may be one sort of person; by training and education we may be quite another…”
What does it means? Each of us have two fundamental tracts, better known by those who undertakes ankind of serious inner reasearch, as Being (or, to use a more religious term- Soul); the other tract is our character.
We might say that Being (in that case used as a noun, not as a verb) is the real man or woman. To acieve his terrestrial experience, it needs two fundamental ”tools”: a physical veichle (a body) and the intellect. The Being of a very young child the possibility to use these tools, so he perceives the external world by his physical senses, but he haven’t any possibility to interact: his body is still undeveloped. Neither he can have any contact whit te other, because his intellectual tool can’t perform any kind of theory about what he perceives, can’t make any relation whit his sensation and can’t share the aquired experiences because he loss a method of comunication- he don’t speak yet.
During the next years of developement, both body and intellect grows. So, the Being begins to learn how to use the tools to experience the external world: intellect serves to print the experiences in his memory, to make associations and drawing useful results to continue his physical experience. A common example: a child sees a flame of a candle, he is attracted by this flame because she is something that the Being have never experienced before, so grows the impulse to touch it. So, using his physical tool, the child touches the flame and, of course, he burns his fingers; the intellect perceives the pain, so he memorizes the experience as: flame is painful. This memory would perserve later the child to burn his body. But, the lesson is not accomplished yet: the child sees the attracting red luminosity of the electric stove- this is not similar to the flame he exprienced before so he, moved by the impulse of the Being, touches the stove and he burns his fingers again. It deserves some similar experiences before the child could make the conclusion that all that burn makes pain. The Being, using the body senses in accord whit the associations of the previous experiences and making the appropriate relations, begins to learn something new.
So, the Being learns only through the direct experience. His noutrishement are the sensations that he perceives through the physical veichle: he eats impressions! What he can touch gives him impressions, and his sensibility grows in relation of the number of experiences achieved. Cutting off the possibility of new experimentations means stopping the Beings developement.
Unfortunately, this limitation begins when the child learns the first external education, first by the parents and then by the school and society in general who gives him some indications about what is correct and what is not: do this and not that, and when the child grows these indications become more complex and abstract such as this is ”good” and this is ”bad”. The material vetos become moral, based on conditionings and not explanations. This situation blocks every possibility of new experimentations, so blocks the Being’s growth
The intellectual center grows in disproportionate maneer aqu