The Mind: A Chemistry of Thoughts

The Mind: A Chemistry of Thoughts

As modern human beings, we often turn to medicine and medication with a sense of helplessness, believing that doctors hold all the answers and that medications are the ultimate solution, while we see ourselves as powerless and lacking agency. However, this perspective is misguided. The key lies in finding balance—between our nutrition, exercise, sleep, and mental processes. It's essential to recognize that our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs directly influence our bodies on a cellular level; in other words, our thoughts are chemistry in action.

This is evident when we observe how people's moods shift in response to different sensory stimuli: the sound of a symphony evokes a different emotional reaction than the roar of a thunderstorm, and an image of a newborn puppy triggers a very different response than a picture of a tragic car accident. The truth is that we are the architects of our own moods. To shift or manage them, we must be conscious, deliberate, and intentional in our approach.

This is not to discount the role of medication, which, when prescribed responsibly and appropriately, can help restore chemical balance in the body. Whether used short-term or long-term, medication can be effective, but its success is often contingent upon being combined with other approaches, such as therapy, exercise, and mindfulness practices.

Historically, many healing traditions, such as acupressure and acupuncture, sought to restore balance and homeostasis within the body. In much the same way, modern medicine aims to achieve that same goal. A common challenge in our contemporary culture, however, is the expectation that medicine will "fix" us entirely, without us needing to put in effort ourselves—other than simply following the prescribed treatment.

To diverge momentarily: in many spiritual/religious traditions aside from legal guidelines for living in community there are often precepts/edicts which focus on what we do with our minds and the consequences of our focus. In Western Christendom it is ‘the seven deadly sins*/errors’ in Buddhism it’s the ‘8 precepts. The 7/8 ‘s point to originating thoughts that culminate in resultant actions, and misdeeds.

(1) Pride: self-importance, self-centeredness: the error being that this mental disposition throws us into conflict with others through our disregard towards them thus creating social disharmony, discord.

(2) Greed, or covetousness: the error puts at odds with others because our desire disregards the rights and autonomy of others.

(3) lust, or inordinate or illicit sexual desire: the error again leads to the violation of others by making physical satisfaction the goal over consideration for the welfare of an-other.

(4) Envy: the error is being fixated on wanting what others have and being dissatisfied with what we already possess.

(5) Gluttony, including drunkenness: the error is not controlling one’s appetite bringing harm to one’s body and potentially depriving others of what they need.

(6) wrath/anger: the error is that the emotions become stronger than reason and are

disproportionate to the event sponsoring them. Often compelling one to respond excessively and becoming in fact unreasonable and causing harm (self-righteous indignation).

(7) Sloth: abdicating our free will and agency, a temper tantrum causing one to withdraw effort, become apathetic, becoming helpless and believing that one is a victim.

(Each of these can be overcome with the seven virtues of (1) humility: an openness to learning and change (2) charity: considering others, recognizing the balance brought about by mutuality and reciprocity (3) chastity: being uncorrupted by physical desires which objectify/demean others and oneself (4) gratitude: recognizing all that is working in our lives not just what is notworking (5) temperance: not being controlled by physical or mental impulse (6) patience: being able to sustain effort, resilience, and (7) diligence: exercising conscious, deliberate and intentional effort, sustainability.)

Similarly, the 8 Precepts address all the same errors using language which identifies positivity.

(1)  Right action: strive to do good and avoid doing harm.

(2)  Right work: not to exploit, not to harm others, not to harm the earth.

(3)  Right sexual conduct: refrain from using sex: as a drug, to dominate or subdue, or to abuse.

(4)  Right speech: speak the truth but not aggressively; avoid destructive language,

denigrating remarks.

(5)  Right minded: free from intoxicants and or intoxicating thoughts.

(6)  Right vision: see clearly, being mindful that what I lay my eyes upon is taken in by the mind (which can lead to envy, lust, covetousness).

(7)  Right listening: avoid listening to destructive and harmful speech; talk that is poisonous,

(8)  divisive and devaluing of life and living things.

(9)  Right sized: avoid the presumption of arrogance, conceit, remain free from self-centeredness/vanities which lead us apart from others and our self.

The goal of these mindfulness practices is not religious: although attributing these ideas to divine intention provided institutions the psychological and emotional leverage to compel behaviors/conduct conducive to communal/societal living.

Returning to an earlier point, "The evidence is that we are the harbingers of our own moods, and to influence our moods we must be conscious, deliberate, and intentional." This statement underlines the significant role our awareness and intentionality play in shaping how we feel. Historically, during the earlier stages of human evolution, societies were largely governed by collective thought—the ideas, customs, and prejudices shared by the group—because the survival and thriving of these communities depended on conformity. Behaviors perceived as disruptive or counterproductive to societal cohesion were often deemed "sinful," and those who violated these norms faced severe penalties, including corporal punishment, torture, and even death.

In this context, conformity was not just a social expectation but a survival mechanism. However, as human societies evolved, so did our intellectual and social development, leading to a reevaluation of what constitutes a "sin." While many of these outdated moral judgments no longer hold the same weight in modern, progressive societies, there are still cultures that maintain these traditional views, and individuals who are deemed sinners may still face harsh social or legal consequences.

In contrast, some indigenous or tribal cultures have developed a more inclusive approach, viewing differences—whether related to neurodiversity, sexual orientation, or other forms of human variation—as valuable gifts. This reflects a shift from viewing divergence as a threat to seeing it as a strength that enhances the richness of the human experience.

The term "sin," historically rooted in archery as a metaphor for "missing the mark," points to the idea of falling short of an ideal or societal expectation. This notion of transgression, however, has evolved over time, as many once-prohibited behaviors are no longer considered sinful. The evolution of human intellect has led to a broader acceptance of diversity, though remnants of older, more punitive moral codes persist in certain societies.

Moreover, this evolution of thought is intertwined with neurochemistry, which influences how we respond to our surroundings—especially the stimuli related to our family of origin. Sensory experiences, such as specific smells, foods, or rituals, can trigger vivid memories and emotional responses linked to one’s upbringing. For example, for me, the scent of incense, the sound of chanting, and the presence of sacred icons bring feelings of peace, equanimity, and divine love, while the smell of vomit evokes unease and fear of illness. This phenomenon is known as "sense memory," where sensory input reactivates past emotional experiences, which may range from comforting to traumatic.

Three particular human emotions—anger, anxiety, and depression—can be seen as fundamental experiences that shape our responses to the world. While anxiety and depression are generally more accepted and elicit empathy from others, anger is a far more volatile and socially disruptive emotion. It often triggers fear and defensiveness in others, especially when expressed in an intense or uncontrollable manner.

When a person becomes angry, their body releases chemicals like epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline), which are associated with the body’s fight-or-flight response. These chemicals rapidly prepare the body for action, increasing heart rate and mental clarity, signaling that danger is imminent. If the emotional response is not managed, this surge of energy can overwhelm the individual, leading to disproportionate reactions, often resulting in destructive or violent outbursts.

Media, particularly in American culture, often portrays and even glorifies such responses to anger, as seen in films like Taxi Driver, Carrie, Dirty Harry, Full Metal Jacket, and The Deer Hunter. In these narratives, anger-driven violence is often depicted as a justified or even heroic response to societal injustice. The problem, however, lies in how such portrayals can shape societal attitudes. These representations are frequently dismissed as mere entertainment, with little attention paid to their potential to influence real-world behaviors. This dynamic mirrors the effects of “hate speech,” which, while often defended as a form of free expression, can incite harmful and violent reactions in others, eroding social cohesion and causing real damage to individuals and communities.

This is particularly evident in instances where peaceful protests, for example, devolve into violent confrontations—demonstrating how inflammatory rhetoric can fuel destructive actions. Ironically, my own father, whom I considered one of the most peaceful individuals I knew, was deeply involved in international politics during World War II and the years that followed, engaging in covert operations that included acts of state-sponsored violence. His own peaceability did not exempt him from the broader, often violent, structures within which he operated.

Additionally, I believe that men, in particular, are socialized to deal with anger in ways that can be more destructive than the ways women are socialized. This is not to suggest that women are incapable of anger or violence, but rather that the societal response to male anger has historically been more permissive, even celebratory, and often linked to notions of masculinity and strength. The socialization of boys to repress vulnerability and express dominance may also explain the prevalence of violence in men, as they attempt to assert control in response to feelings of disconnection or powerlessness. Furthermore, religious traditions that glorify vengeful male deities—such as the jealous and wrathful gods in certain patriarchal mythologies—reinforce the normalization of male anger as a legitimate response to perceived wrongs.

The impact of such gendered socialization becomes particularly evident when we examine phrases like “boys will be boys,” which are used to downplay or minimize the violent or harmful behavior of men. This minimization is especially alarming because it reinforces a dangerous cultural narrative that absolves men of accountability, allowing harmful behaviors to persist unchallenged. The normalization of sexual violence, particularly against women, is a striking example of this—exemplified by statements like the infamous remark made by a political figure in 2016, suggesting that men can "do anything" to women without consequence. Such statements serve to normalize the objectification, subjugation, and dehumanization of women.

On a deeper level, I contend that men may suffer from an attachment disorder that stems from their early separation from the mother at birth, the severing of the umbilical cord, a moment that marks the loss of a primal connectedness. This emotional disconnection is never fully healed in the same way it is for women, who can potentially experience a renewed sense of oneness through motherhood. As a result, men may seek to fill this emotional void through dominance, control, and possessiveness—manifesting in behaviors like the objectification of women or the quest for power and legacy. These compensatory behaviors are often exacerbated by the myths surrounding patriarchal deities, which instruct men to dominate and control, perpetuating a hierarchical, misogynistic worldview. The mythological narratives of Zeus and Yahweh, for example, depict rape as a divine act of power, reinforcing the idea of male entitlement and control over women's bodies.

In conclusion, the patterns of male violence, control, and possessiveness are not only a product of cultural conditioning but also of deeper emotional and psychological wounds. These wounds, rooted in the early experiences of attachment and disconnection, fuel the aggressive behaviors that are often normalized or even celebrated in society. To break these cycles, it is essential to critically examine the ways in which emotional regulation, cultural narratives, and gendered expectations intersect, and to foster greater empathy and understanding toward those who struggle with anger, anxiety, and depression—while also holding individuals accountable for their actions

Sin: The word “sin” referred to in the writings of some religious sects relates to an archery term meaning “missing

the mark.”  Violent: brutal, cruel, sadistic, vicious.