Spiritual and self-help literature often advises people to "follow their heart". What it means is: go with your feelings.
This advice bears some close investigation.
In an infant, feelings are, to borrow a phrase from the visual field, monochromatic. They are of a single flavor. Either the infant is happy, or sad, or fearful, etc. There aren't multiple conflicting feelings which have to be resolved.
As the infant grows up, and even in some advanced mammals like a pet dog, it is possible to have multiple feelings at the same time, usually as a result of learning. The child or the pet dog might be desirous of a candy, but might be apprehensive of what the parent/master would do or say.
In fact, growth or domestication are synonymous with restraining one's instincts, or in moderating the expression of one's feelings.
The more a man gets socialized, the more stops are put on just acting out on one's feelings. A man might want to make love to the beautiful woman he just saw on the road, right then and there, but extensive socialization tells him to behave himself. An overweight woman might want to eat another tub of ice-cream, but her knowledge about the calories she would consume and would need to burn via exercise, makes her give up the idea.
A pet which acts out and has no fear of the master, or a human which does not restrain himself, is called wild or a brute. The unruly pet is taken away and put down, and an unruly human ("a law unto himself") is imprisoned.
The advice to follow one's heart assumes that there is a dominant "pure heart" whose voice one must listen and act upon. That one should disregard the "mind", and the socialization-caused "fears" and just follow one's "inner truth". But it is logically obvious that if the "pure heart" is indeed dominant, or if the feeling is without its opposite, one will act it out without the master's advice or the self-help literature.
It is only in cases of conflict that one seeks guidance. In cases of conflicting feelings, it is generally true that one feeling is the instinctual one, and the conflicting one is due to the force of socialization. The self-help advice is to act out one's instincts and disregard the "imaginary" consequences (they won't be imaginary for very long, unfortunately). The fear of imprisonment if one steals an attractive watch from a shop window is about an "imaginary" future, but that imagination is not without a foundation.
Some seemingly intelligent and educated gurus like Mr Jaggi Vasudev or Osho were fond of extorting their followers to see their fears as born of their past and projected into their future, and hence unreal (!). Yes, they are unreal now, but try to disregard your fears, and see how soon the law or the society catches up with you.
To follow one's heart is good advice only if one has become over-socialized, is overly scared and worried, and is hesitant to take even little risks. But for the vast majority of humankind, to live with conflict between the instincts and the social influences is a form of discontent (ref Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents") that has to be endured.
Self-help and Spirituality advise a regression to the id, when its conflict with the superego becomes too much to handle for the ego. In such cases, the id and the superego are both strong and constantly in opposition. It is important to lessen this friction (e.g. by sublimating one's instincts, or by finding valid avenues for their natural fulfillment) but it is not recommended to want to be free of this friction altogether.
Everybody wants to revert to the simplicity of childhood and to the way of heartful living. But one forgets that a child had the protection and supervision of its parents. The parents were an externalized superego. An adult, to protect himself, has to internalize his superego. He can no longer depend on his parents to guide or protect him throughout the day. And therefore, he is comprised and burdened with both the child-nature and the parent-nature.
This burden and this friction is entirely natural. To seek to be free of this burden is to misunderstand our nature and to indulge in fantasy.
This advice bears some close investigation.
In an infant, feelings are, to borrow a phrase from the visual field, monochromatic. They are of a single flavor. Either the infant is happy, or sad, or fearful, etc. There aren't multiple conflicting feelings which have to be resolved.
As the infant grows up, and even in some advanced mammals like a pet dog, it is possible to have multiple feelings at the same time, usually as a result of learning. The child or the pet dog might be desirous of a candy, but might be apprehensive of what the parent/master would do or say.
In fact, growth or domestication are synonymous with restraining one's instincts, or in moderating the expression of one's feelings.
The more a man gets socialized, the more stops are put on just acting out on one's feelings. A man might want to make love to the beautiful woman he just saw on the road, right then and there, but extensive socialization tells him to behave himself. An overweight woman might want to eat another tub of ice-cream, but her knowledge about the calories she would consume and would need to burn via exercise, makes her give up the idea.
A pet which acts out and has no fear of the master, or a human which does not restrain himself, is called wild or a brute. The unruly pet is taken away and put down, and an unruly human ("a law unto himself") is imprisoned.
The advice to follow one's heart assumes that there is a dominant "pure heart" whose voice one must listen and act upon. That one should disregard the "mind", and the socialization-caused "fears" and just follow one's "inner truth". But it is logically obvious that if the "pure heart" is indeed dominant, or if the feeling is without its opposite, one will act it out without the master's advice or the self-help literature.
It is only in cases of conflict that one seeks guidance. In cases of conflicting feelings, it is generally true that one feeling is the instinctual one, and the conflicting one is due to the force of socialization. The self-help advice is to act out one's instincts and disregard the "imaginary" consequences (they won't be imaginary for very long, unfortunately). The fear of imprisonment if one steals an attractive watch from a shop window is about an "imaginary" future, but that imagination is not without a foundation.
Some seemingly intelligent and educated gurus like Mr Jaggi Vasudev or Osho were fond of extorting their followers to see their fears as born of their past and projected into their future, and hence unreal (!). Yes, they are unreal now, but try to disregard your fears, and see how soon the law or the society catches up with you.
To follow one's heart is good advice only if one has become over-socialized, is overly scared and worried, and is hesitant to take even little risks. But for the vast majority of humankind, to live with conflict between the instincts and the social influences is a form of discontent (ref Freud's "Civilization and its Discontents") that has to be endured.
Self-help and Spirituality advise a regression to the id, when its conflict with the superego becomes too much to handle for the ego. In such cases, the id and the superego are both strong and constantly in opposition. It is important to lessen this friction (e.g. by sublimating one's instincts, or by finding valid avenues for their natural fulfillment) but it is not recommended to want to be free of this friction altogether.
Everybody wants to revert to the simplicity of childhood and to the way of heartful living. But one forgets that a child had the protection and supervision of its parents. The parents were an externalized superego. An adult, to protect himself, has to internalize his superego. He can no longer depend on his parents to guide or protect him throughout the day. And therefore, he is comprised and burdened with both the child-nature and the parent-nature.
This burden and this friction is entirely natural. To seek to be free of this burden is to misunderstand our nature and to indulge in fantasy.