Self Awareness

By Marios Papaloizou

About me.

Human behaviour and the consequences of our actions on society is something that has always intrigued me. After I completed my degree in Fine Arts I put myself through an experiment in an attempt to understand humanity. I got a job in an occupation unknown to me and I was the foreigner among individuals from two countries who lived together for hundreds of years. There was always conflict between them but through time things changed as they became accustomed to each other and finally through the latest generation we see marriages between them. When I arrived I instantly became the one thing they had in common. I was the outsider, the foreigner, I have read about racism, discrimination and prejudice but I never experienced it. Being the foreigner in a society I experienced at first-hand kind of human behaviour which eventually led to my isolation. I start doubting my abilities as an individual, I had no a value as a human being. There was an immense lack of experience in life from my behalf. I realised that before this experiment I deliberately avoided putting myself in uncomfortable situations. I have yet to master this human action.
What is an ability, a talent or a skill in a subject without inspiration? Am I being arrogant by saying I have an ability or a talent or its self awareness? Have you ever seen your grandparents kissing each other? What can we learn about the society of our grandparents through Michael Kasialos’ paintings? Can we analyse the mental stages of a society through the female figures illustrated during this era? Mr Kasialos possessed a mind which echoed “renaissance and science” renaissance. Through him we can interpret the stages of human kind, how we evolved as thinkers from the prehistoric times. My grandmother faced discrimination. I doubt the fact that she got pleasure from intercourse. I wish I could say that my grandfather was a bad person, it would make things very simple in terms of how to approach this matter. The complicated thing is, that is how the society was, by saying that my grandmother never received any pleasure from intercourse I can say that she did not know how to give pleasure, I did not see her kissing my grandfather. What are the actions in order to have this kind of a relationship from the female and male figure? What are the consequences? How does this affect the next generations? What makes my grandmother an important individual, an inspiration to me is that she is aware of the situation. A lot of individuals follow blindly the moulding process of the society. I have seen her many times staring into space, sitting on her chair breathing heavily and surrounded by her thoughts. From her behaviour, I have deduced that there is a connection to how we evolve as thinkers from the prehistoric times. I have no doubt that if she was in a different society, like in England she might have had a similar character to Margaret Thatcher. It is society that harvests intelligence. There is nothing to do with the Cypriot DNA or British DNA.
I am in a transitional stage in my life, I realise that I will never fully understand humanity. I would be extremely ignorant to believe so. I need a subject in order to help me put my thoughts in order. What is an experience and a passion about a subject without applying correct politics? In my pursuit of understanding humanity as an artist, I realise I need to apply a realistic approach to my work. By choosing anthropology as my new subject it doesn't signify that I am confused, or a person who is destined to change the choices made in life. Being a healthy individual it means I am in a constant development, where one thing leads to another.


Marios Papaloizou


In my mind I saved the world from the miseries associated with the mind. Humanity were compelled to build a statue to commemorate my actions. A perfect, immaculate statue that emulates the theory of the golden ratio. They felt so obliged that they decided to push the limits of their knowledge and technology and built me the statue on Mars. I love the idea, through my imagination I feel proud of myself in reality I know that I deserve the statue. But first humanity must transform Mars in order to create atmosphere. I felt so powerful seeing my statue on Mars. Through time, knowledge and personal experience, my mind has changed and I am now reflecting and evaluating myself. In amongst the thought process, I am present combined with my thoughts and the feelings that have been created by my thoughts. There is also another part of my brain which is wondering way I feel this way.
As time passed, I was presented with another scenario: as the statue was in Mars, it would be exposed to a plethora of conditions. For instance, meteorites. However, my thoughts were somewhat comforted because the atmosphere on Mars could protect my statue from small meteorites.
Where did that come from? I did not think about asteroids. I was upset when an asteroid destroyed my statue. Who brought the asteroid? I was livid, enraged with anger. My ego was shattered, however, I did not want to show weakness and I acted as if I did not care. However, inside me I was boiling with anger.
My anger was short-lived as I built another statue but this time, I placed satellites orbiting Mars in order to detect large foreign objects. This did not prove effective to deter things from destroying my statue again. This time, I sent an intergalactic fleet to look for large items coming towards Mars. But every time, my statue was destroyed by something more omnipotent than me. This created sheer panic, it made me a miserable, angry and narrow-minded person. Consumed with anger. I became bitter and became rather solitary. I wasn’t a very talkative person for I thought of myself as the greatest of them all. Nobody in my eyes deserved my attention.
Humanity needs my divine guidance and knowledge as they are less intelligent and are not capable of making decisions. Having realised that I was not as immortal as I assumed, as a direct result my mind, kept destroying the statue as a metaphorical way of saying that I am not divine but an ordinary person. I have lost control of my mind. I am experiencing panic attacks, anxiety and confusion.
Through time, knowledge and experience my mind kept changing. I am not upset that I am not a superior being, but I realise my ignorance. I loved the idea of acknowledgement and that my actions were being appreciated.
Through knowledge, experience and time, I realise that I did not save humanity at all. I have reset humanity. The statue was symbolic as it gave me an identity and made me into an idol. A Cypriot by the name of Marios Papaloizou saved the world. The fact that I have origins from Cyprus will instantly create a sense of nationalism. The Cypriots will love the fact that a humble Cypriot saved the world. However, with time, racism will come. If there is racism, people will be divided and conflict will arise. Pockets of the Cypriot society will say that there should be a sense of appreciation from the rest of the world because the truth remains, a Cypriot saved the world. Through time, other parts of the world will become ignorant and deny that the world was never in danger, so there was no need for anyone to save the world if the world didn’t need saving in the first place. History was so poorly documented which was littered with inaccuracies and painted a different picture. Through generations, I have become an idol, a legend, a folk story. Some may question my actions and sadly few will interpret my mistakes. What have I done? I have rest history. History will repeat itself again and will reach the same point as we are now.
I am content to know that I am not infinite nor a perfect specimen that incorporates the theory of the golden ration. It is comforting to know this, if not peaceful. Now my objective is to understand humanity without expecting to fully understand it. I know that I cannot figure out everything. However, my quest will be my pursuit of excellence. I am not hoping to create a utopian world but I am looking for a balance. My initial interpretation of history is wrong. It is inevitable that there will always be conflict and diversity. The constant pursuit to create a utopian society or world is what is distorting my mind and has led to the downfall of many others who have tried the same approach.


As an artist, I am expressive in thought and almost feel compelled to explore my inner feelings. If I am happy, I feel inspired to create something that reflects and embraces that positive feeling. If on the other hand, I am sad, I unearth something macabre and dismal. A few years ago, something happened, which changed my ideology and approach to art.
As an avid nature lover, I always go to “Natures Path” with a good friend of mine. I enjoy walking around picking up rubbish and my friend enjoys laying on the ground, observing nature. At one point, my friend said something that sounded so great to my ears, but like all great things, it was so simple that I did not pay too much attention to it at first. He said, “Marie, to be an environmentalist, not only do you have to do something about it, but you must make others act as well”.
As soon as he said this, his words initiated something inside my head. Whilst I was picking up the rubbish, I began to feel very proud of myself because I knew that I was doing something worthy. In my mind, I was imagining people watching me carrying out this act and commenting on how noble I was. However, as soon as he made that comment, the proudness burst like a balloon. I was shocked, mostly, because before he uttered such words of wisdom, he instinctively disposed of his rubbish by swiftly tossing it in the street. At that time of my life, I never realised it was possible that the human brain could be irresponsible yet at the same time display such knowledge.
This raised a plethora of questions: If the brain is supposedly dormant, do we need knowledge to be active? In my case, I was active, but my knowledge was inadequate. Why did I feel inadequate? I was doing something that was good, yet when my friend made his remark, I instantly felt numb and inadequate. His words triggered something in my brain, it heightened my awareness, even if it was for a split second. One part of my brain registered the fact that I was picking up rubbish while people were applauding, but the other part displayed a feeling of dissatisfaction. The climax of feeling proud to suddenly feeling unimportant had a profound effect on me and sub-conscientiously raised lots of questions: Why did people feel compelled to applaud me for the most simplest of actions of picking up rubbish? Or was the act itself more important despite its simplicity and unimportance? Was it the fact that I began to feel proud of my effort to help or the fact that people had recognised my goodwill by applauding me? Did I become smug, knowing that my actions would attract attention? Why was this negative feeling stimulated? What should I do about it?
For a split second, a part of my brain dropped its mask. But only for a second.
My friend and I have a special bond. I have known him since childhood and I have grown to understand his character very well. He has an uncanny intuition that reveals itself ever-so-often. His strokes of genius happen spontaneously; most often when there is a catalyst. He is a talkative fellow, but often finds it hard to differentiate between fact and fiction. His desire to invent stories to give it a more aesthetic feel often pushes him to bend the truth. Why and how he thought of such a statement, still amazes me. In a way, I was upset I did not show much enthusiasm. At the time, I felt like I already knew what he was saying, so I acted as if it was of no great importance. Upon reflection, this is how I usually used to act when someone said something intellectual to me. I was the type of person who classed myself as intelligent but every time I heard such discussion from others I was jealous and became agitated. To shield my ego for not thinking of it myself, I often used to trick my brain into thinking that I already knew it.
The connection I have with my friend is unbreakable. Even though we argue, we are immediately friends as soon as we both have said our piece. He knows how to show love and I try to learn from him, but I have a lot to learn. He is natural, but if I were to adopt this “state of being”, it appears staged, almost like I am acting. Every time, I go back to Cyprus for holidays, his eyes well up, without fail, when it’s time for me to leave. He always calls me “Marie mou”, which is used in an affectionate way to address loved ones or close family members. In English it would be something along the lines of “My Marie”. In Cyrus, it is normal, for men to address each other in this way and even to kiss each other. Some people try to theorise that this is “culture”, I say, that Cypriots [we] are warm people.
For example, when you are doing business with someone you barely know, you use the “Mou” expression to make them feel more at ease. You instantly establish a “friendship”. In simple terms, you are pretending and potentially building a false sense of security. The streets mimic this false sense of security and reflect warmth and an amicable environment. However, there are always two sides of a coin. In the example given, “Mou” is being used by friends, but a part of the brain consciously or subconsciously is using it for different agendas; political reasons, let’s say. The experience I had that day, was like an awakening, an epiphany. It gave me a new goal to my art and it was the beginning of the reconstruction of my character. Awareness is a very important functionality. Knowing that there are always two sides of a coin in everything is not enough. If I have read something in a book, it doesn’t mean that I have an awareness of it. In order to identify, both sides must be analysed (at great length) in various situations. What spurred me to choose one side? Was I driven by honesty or convenience? How did my brain process information in order to choose this side of the coin? Was this feeling of awareness the first occasion or was it mistaken for consciousness? Why it happened on that specific day baffles me. Was it motivated by the connection and opinion I have of this person? The location perhaps?
Once I began analysing in more depth, my first reaction was of silence and confusion. At that point, as I have mentioned previously, my ego restricted me from exploring further. It made me into a very shallow person. Now, I have an awareness of it and the functionality of the brain, made me silent. Since that day, I have become very withdrawn and I have started to listen to my brain; a functionality, I did not know how to control. I was observing my brain by listening to my thoughts and I started to analyse my actions, feelings and behaviour. However, I am unaccustomed to doing so and as a result have created utter confusion, perhaps even paranoia. For some reason my friend’s words awoke something that has been dormant in my brain. It created an action- reaction moment.
Through my studies the subject of "saving the planet" was not as simple as I thought. I unexpectedly faced obstacles I never thought I would ever encounter. Through this, my approach to the subject had to change and I had to adapt to various circumstances. One of the obstacles I have faced are knowledgeable people; individuals like myself. What do I mean by that? A poignant example would be when I showed a picture of a homeless person laying on the ground to a friend. He studies photography and he looked at the image and said to me ". The picture is ok but it doesn't have much depth to it and the contrast needs fixing. Also I do not like the quality of the paper that the picture is printed on". I showed the same image to my grandmother, a person with far less education and who has witnessed two wars and her approach to the subject was a stark contrast to my friend. She created questions, not statements. Who is he? What is he doing on the floor? Where is he? Do you know him? You just sat there and took pictures of him? Is it morally correct to take his photo?
From this example, I believe that combined at least two major social behaviours. For instances, how the same image can have a different impact on two people from different backgrounds, with different levels of education. My grandmother is from Cyprus, where homelessness is very few and far between. Whereas a grandmother from England, growing in a different environment becomes accustomed to seeing these kind of images and will have a different reaction to the picture.
There is nothing glamorous about this topic. The grandmother from England may assume that homelessness is the result of personal failings; not wanting to comply with social norms of securing employment, substance abuse (whether it is alcoholic or drug related) or sheer laziness. Other contributing factors could be social and economic and down to a lack of government support. Most people fail to realise that the causes of homelessness involve a complex interchange between the person’s individual circumstances and the adverse “social and economic” factors which inevitably are outside their control. However, these arguments are viewed differently according to individual interpretations of the topic. At times, I ask myself, as an artist, who do I want to influence? Who will pay good money for my work? On the other hand, I think, who will act to try and change problems, who will fight, who is willing to think out of the box so that we can have a calm, stress-free life and ultimately “save the world”.
Ideologies of promoting utopia are highly ambitious and supposedly, with good intention, but the fact of the matter is would it be wise to bite the hand that will feed me? In other words, should I turn down monetary offers for my work, in favour of “saving the world”? Should I adopt an individualistic approach and not think about marketing, politics and the economy? Should I aim to influence others through my work?
I believe that in response to these questions, there should be an element of balance. This is what I must incorporate in my life. The way that society is transforming in the twenty-first century, individuals, characters, both social approaches are needed. Like it or not, I need to approach and influence clients so that I too can lead what is considered to be a healthy and normal life. Living in a consumer-driven society, makes it extremely difficult to have access to basic amenities without money. Having a good memory is another important function of the brain, which will bring balance, so I will not forget to approach and influence people, like my grandmother, after the satisfaction and happiness I will receive from money. It is a classic scenario. There must be a mathematical equation behind this. Pleasure and satisfaction creates distraction to the mind. How many times have you heard the story of an individual with a bright future when they first started their career? They have all the ingredients to secure a bright future. However, we have to understand and acknowledge the fact that some individuals are not immune to external influences such as: decision to change their predestined career path and change their course.
The brain functions as if it is an entirely different person, it is our nature if not innate. The question is, what is causing this behaviour? Could it be due to a sudden change of lifestyle from discipline to disorder? Is it due to the individual’s character and or external factors that have promoted this change? Can individuals get carried away with themselves? Is it possible that they adopt this change themselves? Can another individual influence this change? Does it depend on age? If the individual is in the early stages of their life, could this be a possibility? Force is a different subject, but what if an individual who is twenty-two, never smoked marihuana and at a house party some individuals offer him a joint and he instantly becomes addicted to it. At that moment, he believes that he has found his other half, his soul mate, and his brain instantly becomes addicted to it without a second thought. Did he get carried away? Or did the individual have a “disorder” in him and with the influence, got carried away?
I like to put myself in different situations in order to gain experience so I can link theory with practice. By studying thus becoming knowledge about a subject and gaining experience, does awareness expand? With that note, do you become aware of an action, until you gain first-hand experience of it? What is an experience? In order to say I have experience, must there be awareness of this action? Is experience a kind of activity? In order to say that I am active, must I be aware of what I am doing in order to have experience?
When I was studying, I was lucky enough to have financial support from my father. I was completely dependent on him and was not fully prepared for life after university. At the time, I was completely unaware of how ill-equipped I was for life after university. Upon reflection, university was a romantic time, a time filled with inspiration, promise and success for the future. When I acquired my degree, I was extremely proud and felt like Bruce almighty when he realised that he had God’s power. Nothing prepared me for what I was about to experience, despite the fact that I attended lectures on this subject (which I paid little attention to). In my mind, it was not rocket science; just common sense. Countless people aspire to do something good for society once they finish university, but as soon as they get a random job to pay the bills, the first thing that comes to your mind is, who is going to help me? It’s a situation that more and more people are experiencing. Many of us, for various reasons, stay in that job and when you meet up with friends, you can’t help but notice that characters and behaviours have changed.
Now I am living without the support of my family and I am thinking about my time at university. I had plans whilst I was at university, such as, making the right connections with my peers and finding an appropriate balance between my social life and study. Do I make connections for political reasons or do I find a right balance? University was like a “belle epoque” and painted a distorted view of life. Due to this lack of experience, living and working outside of university is not as easy as I initially thought. On the other hand, the brain constantly thinks about balance. By staying in a job which has nothing to do with what I studied is creating a range of conflictions. Could this be because I haven’t achieved what I set out to do. My head feels heavy and my mind is dark and gloomy. I no longer take the time to look after myself and no longer follow a structured timetable. I convince myself that I would be even more depressed if I didn’t have a job and became a burden to my parents. I am reassured by my brain that I should not be ashamed of my actions. I am told that it is a social problem that happens to many students before and after university. What factors are causing this sudden change in character? Is it due to maturity or is it the result of an unexpected experience? I must instil some kind of balance but my mind is fixed on that moment. The experience I had with my friend, the connections I made whilst I was studying, life after university without the financial support of my family and the unpleasant situation at work are scenarios which urge me to act now. I must listen to my brain and must improve myself as an individual.
When a person has a childhood dream and achieves it, it's not as simple and as romantic as it sounds for complications can arise in the action of realising that dream. The overly-ambitious dreams experienced by a teenager may not seem so unobtainable in their thirties. The dreams of a fifteen year old are only limited by their own imagination.  
What kind of actions could a ten or fifteen-year- old mind imagine that is achievable in their thirties they have manage to achieve what they have dreamed of, ten-fifteen years ago. The possibilities are limitless, even Hitler had a dream. At this point I will not pass judgement on what is right or wrong, I’m simply a little boy drifting amongst the clouds curiously observing humanity below. I do get the feeling that I am flying quite often. I had a dream one night, in that dream it was dark, I was running down a familiar road and I was alone. While I was running I felt that gravity was losing its grip on me. I was soaring higher and higher with every leap until I flew so high that the world disappeared around me and I disappeared. Fear had a vice like grip on my chest, was I awake or asleep? Panic was setting in; I was breathing in short and fast bursts, not quite hyperventilating… it sounded different. It came from the nose, it sounded almost as if I was snoring rapidly. Was the heavy feeling of dread crushing my chest in my dream, or reality? The Marios who was sleeping, was he the one who was panicking, or was it the Marios inside the dream? Am I watching my bedroom from the sealing? One of the most vivid childhood memories I have, is the feeling of falling in my dreams. I’m not watching myself falling, I’m living the moment. I have felt it many times in my dreams as a child. For some reason a part of my brain has connected the experience of flying, with the childhood experience of falling. Have I visited myself, approximately twenty five years from now? If so, is there a Marios at this moment in 2015, twenty five years from now, a part of me wonders. 
Hitler was an individual with an idea, just like so many others. In the previous paragraph I started the sentence with " The possibilities are limitless, even Hitler had a dream ". The memory of the incident mentioned previously came to mind the moment I wrote the word ‘dream’, interrupting my train of thought. My mind often makes these abstract connections and because of that I tend to forget the subject that I have started with. ‘Even Hitler had a dream…’ A part of my mind urges me to use this individual because of his actions, for some it may be a struggle to see my point of view. He created panic and destruction; many have died from his actions in the pursuit of his ideals. It will be very difficult to accept my point of view formed from the example of this individual. A part of my mind insists that it is a good thing; it will exercise the mind and provoke thought, instead of giving an easier example such as Alexander the Great. As soon as I wrote the name Alexander a singular thought interrupted my hypothesis ‘Am I assuming that Hitler was as great as Alexander?’ Quite often in my mind I am being judged by various individuals. My mind plays with the concept of using characters to create scenarios according to what they might have said, according to how I have interpreted their characters.  This is a very important clue. According to how I have interpreted their character. I might be wrong. In this scenario a part of my brain is using an individual which I believe tends to run to different conclusions. It is a possibility, that he might have said “Are you assuming that Hitler is as great as Alexander?” As an observer I like to study human behaviour, Hitler had a dream so did Alexander. There are countless documents and archived information about Hitler even videos, which is in complete contrast to Alexander. Using Hitler as an example makes my effort harder I will be judged not only through the passion of the people, but also through undeniable facts. Passion or Nationalism blurs our judgment; it overcomes reason in various occasions through our lives. Should I blame nationalism? Could I be considered nationalist for writing this in order to point out something to my country men? "Countrymen". 
A part of my mind tends to make sporadic connections between subjects, which is why I tend to look slightly confused whilst I am conversing with others, whilst I am being judged by individuals. Whilst I am thinking of Hitler because I used the word countrymen, it has incited another social subject. By saying countrymen I meant the population of my country, that includes the female population. Why did I use the word ‘country men’? Sometimes so many subjects are being merged together that I lose control of my thoughts. Sometimes my mind races uncontrollably with the mess of jostling thoughts and ideas fighting for space. I am trying not to go off topic whilst I am having a conversation, yet another part of my mind explores another conflicting topic. Being a Nationalist, must I be proud and passionate about my nation? I am not proud of being Cypriot, I am simply a child with my head in the clouds who happens to have Cypriot parents and who was raised in Cyprus. It is a very important clue to how I translate human behaviour and historical data. 
A new born child emerged from the belly of a Cypriot mother and a Cypriot father; the labour took place in a hospital in Cyprus. When the child was born they gave it to Indian parents. The child was raised in India, attended an Indian school, and adopted the religion, customs, habits, media, all Indian influences. Do you think the boy would wake up one day and ask for souvlaki, because it is in his genes? We become Cypriots, we are not born Cypriots.  Is that ‘Cypriot’ boy an Indian? Not genetically but in spirit, speaking the language and adapting to the society. Is there such a part? The part of the brain where is the functionality of adaptation? Adaptation is a brain functionality? It's an action not a reaction? 
For an adult to enter a different environment and adapt, would it be as easy as it is for a child? I believe not, yet another part of me is asking why? There is always a solution to any problem, which is why I have difficulty providing a sure answer to subjects I’m not familiar with. For that reason, my mind fixates on finding an appropriate solution. Can an adult perform the same complicated action of adaptation in an unfamiliar environment with the ease of a child? What is the difference between an adult’s mind and a child’s? 
Our everyday activities, the media and education are important factors in the creation of our characters. The environment in which we are living, our education system and the media are shaping our society. The group of people that happen to live in that society, on that small island are called Cypriots. Exploring the example of an adult living for a significant amount of time in the same environment, what are the factors that shape his mind making them inflexible to change? Character is important, as is individuality. Why can some individuals still perform the adaptation process during adulthood, whereas others can’t?
An individual knows that his style and character, his culinary tastes, the music he likes, all of these things have been influenced in a significant way because of the society he lives in. Is this self-awareness? If there is an awareness of this subject, is there a possibility that he likes various types of music, he is more open to different tastes of food and the individual can interact with various types of people, not necessarily familiar to his society. Is it because the individual has an elevated sense of awareness or does he just wants to be different? Is there a way to interpret the behaviour of the individual and his intentions? What if he dresses differently and he is wondering why the majority of the people who are living in his neighbourhood are dressed similarly. Because of this a person can believe they are ignorant, and dull. Do they have an awareness of how society can influence a person's style, or does the individual just want to be different? Who is ignorant? If there was awareness would the individual consider the others who are dressed similarly to be a sheep? To give depth to the subject, what about the individual who is aware of the phenomenon and considers the others who follow, to be less educated people. He proudly wears that a badge coated in arrogant and self-assurance created by the belief in his uniqueness. By clothing alone can we adapt a person's character? Twenty or thirty years ago it might have been a possibility; a personality may not be fully adapted but acclimated. It would not cause many heads to turn if there was a purple Mohawk hairstyle on the streets today in contrast to thirty years ago. Perhaps it varies on the country?
Countries like England I believe would not consider it as rebellious and eccentric as it would have been thirty years before. Or perhaps it varies from location to location? Compare London to a small town like Manningtree. The acceptance of various styles in a society is an indication of how liberated the minds of its people. There’s a thin line between human behaviour, like the examples aforementioned, and the intentions of the individual. The need to separate oneself from the crowd or the individual, is evidence of a liberated mind? Therefore when the individual travels to a different society, he will not be unable to integrate with those people, because there is awareness to the actions that creates the character of the people living in a different society.
In fact for that specific individual it will not be different; in this case normal is the correct term. It would be irrational to enter a different society and wonder why the people are different. As a society of Cypriots, what are we? I am simply a child of the world; I have not been moulded to a single society. But in this case by saying ‘what are we’, I am not separating myself from the crowd? By saying ‘what are we’ there is a possibility less people will think ‘who does he think he is?’ Intentionally I am becoming irrational; I am blanketing my personality so ‘they’ won’t feel lonely. I am empathizing with them. Is it possible for an individual to break the mould of his society without being aware of the actions that are uniting it?
I believe that most people who are open to various cultures, perform these actions subconsciously.Without prior knowledge of how the system works, they accept the “procedure” or unwritten rules subconsciously. My own interpretation of concerning the definition of what constitutes as awareness and consciousness is slightly confusing and feel that in order to truly understand the two concepts, I have to make a scenario to have “an awareness” of the subject.
It is important to bear in mind that individuals who wilfully accept different cultures does not automatically mean that they like them. In other words, they conformity and exhibit public compliance but not necessarily private acceptance. Define hypocrisy? Individuals that experience societies different from their own will make comparisons between their own society and the “new” society they are experiencing. They may expect that it is different but at the same time, may not like it. It is important to state that acceptance does not mean like or agree. Essentially, it refers to an individual’s ability to understand the reality of a given situation, and to recognize a process or condition without trying to change it.
We are ascertaining which system is better in favour of creating “utopia”. The ideology here is that individuals accept their new conditions without question. However, if this acceptance is subconscious is this because there is no awareness? Are they unaware of the moulding process? So what is consciousness? Can educated people be irrational? Does education play an important role to adaptation? What if an educated person asked me why I liked living in England and disagreed with my answer? Would this question be deemed as utterly irrational particularly if it came from an uneducated person? Is it possible to be educated, be in possession of a Master’s degree, and at the same time, be irrational, illogical and unreasonable? Does the part of the brain that enforces adaptation, function with the part of the brain that is educated? To be educated necessarily mean awareness? Why is a child’s brain able to adapt far better than an adult’s? One could suggest that the only difference is that a child’s brain has not experienced living in a single society long enough for it to become ingrained or drummed into the brain. Does this mean that their consciousness is still functioning?
With this being the case, does this mean that consciousness is not interlinked with knowledge as children are known to be naïve, gullible and ignorant? Are we born with this state of mind? Is it a state of mind that functions awareness and with knowledge integrated with experience awareness expands? Can one survive without the other? Is an adult’s brain, which has endured decades of moulding, able to “break the mould” and still regain this state of mind? If consciousness is present, but the form is erroneous and “mistranslated”, can we then say their awareness is flawed? Is there such a thing as flawed awareness? If everything has indeed been mistranslated, is it possible to undo the “damage”, even if that individual has been fed the wrong message for “x” amount of years? Is it beyond repair? I am feeling confused, I am not confident about my conclusion.
Earlier, I briefly spoke about the similarities between Hitler and Alexander and at one point forged a link between being a Cypriot via birth and becoming one via adaptation and finally I delved into the subject of consciousness. This process of my brain at this point is far too much for the other part. Imagine, I was sitting at the leg press machine in the gym and an individual stands next to me quietly making me aware of their presence and intention to use the machine once I finish.
One side of my mind was pondering about Hitler, while I was sitting at the leg press machine in the gym, while the other was fixated on consciousness. Whilst I was thinking about all of these things, I failed to realise that there was an individual standing next to me impatiently waiting to use the machine. That time of my life, I had very little control of my thoughts and these blackouts were a regular occurrence. However, I must stress that now these blackouts are much more controlled and could be seen as a thing of the past but I must admit that I find this rather intriguing. The part that really interests me, is the correlation between “action” and “reaction” and sourcing the “root” of the problem. In other words, finding out how that action was stimulated and what the unforeseen consequences of these actions. There were numerous times when I preferred my own company and the ability to perform this action alone, rather than in the company of others. At the time, I found it extremely difficult to discuss these ideas with others, as I presumed that they wouldn’t understand the process of the action-reaction as most people just accept the situation and do not delve deeper.
The two individuals I mentioned previously, had a dream, a plan, and a goal. They were dreamers, visionaries. I am not judging the extent of their dreams nor their purpose but in my opinion they had many common brain functionalities. The ability to influence and conquer may seem to some as totally different actions, but in reality they are doing the same brain functionality. Each of us will interpret their actions in different ways. The complexity of their tasks cannot be measured as equal despite the fact that they are doing the same actions. Some people may argue that Hitler was far more complicated than Alexander and vice versa. It is not accurate nor fair to wrongfully assume that because there is more documented evidence surrounding Hitler’s actions means that he is by far a more complex character. However, I find Hitler as an individual extremely interesting as there is a lot of documented material which I can explore at my leisure and aid me to develop a better understanding of his true nature.
Can we deduce that during Hitler’s era, people were notably more intelligent than in Alexander’s era? If we assess the average intelligence of individuals during this era, we can assume that the level was significantly higher when compared to Alexander’s era. Why is this the case?
It is observed that the right to receive a good standard of education during these times stemmed down to nobility and status. In contrast to Hitler’s era, such conditions are not necessary and so education becomes a right not a luxury.
If I were to state that the average individual during Hitler’s era was more intelligent, how would that sound, especially when compared with Alexander and such iconic figures such as Aristotle and Plato? Many class Hitler’s behaviour as inhumane, one that mimics the epitome of evil, but many fail to realise that he was merely imitating Alexander’s behaviour. Even though their history is different, both functionalities of the brain are similar. Such “brutal and merciless behaviour” was common in this era. But due to the development and civilisation of humanity in terms of establishing social norms (such as human rights and education), Hitler’s actions go against the social norm and are therefore regarded as both unacceptable and inhumane. From that stance, Hitler is an interesting character for me to study.
Can we deduce that during Hitler’s era, people were notably more intelligent than in Alexander’s era? If we assess the average intelligence of ndividuals during this era, we can assume that the level was significantly higher when compared to Alexander’s era. Why is this the case? It is observed that the right to receive a good standard of education during these times stemmed down to nobility and status. In contrast to Hitler’s era, such conditions are not necessary and so education becomes a right not a luxury.
If I were to state that the average individual during Hitler’s era was more intelligent, how would that sound, especially when compared with Alexander and such iconic figures such as Aristotle and Plato? Many class Hitler’s behaviour as inhumane, one that mimics the epitome of evil, but many fail to realise that he was merely imitating Alexander’s behaviour. Even though their history is different, both functionalities of the brain are similar. Such “brutal and merciless behaviour” was common in this era. But due to the development and civilisation of humanity in terms of establishing social norms (such as human rights and education), Hitler’s actions go against the social norm and are therefore regarded as both unacceptable and inhumane. From that stance, Hitler is an interesting character for me to study.
Is it wrong to suggest that during Alexander’s era, people devised their plans more instinctively? Was Alexander aware of his actions? War and expansion was a normal way of life. In contrast to Hitler’s era, society imitates the outlines of a democratic state with interests in human rights, the organisation of societies, the power of the media etc, because of the objectives, I have mentioned, he is instantly classed as a villain despite the fact the he did the same brain functionalities as Alexander. There is a vast array of documented evidence of the atrocities committed at the hands of Hitler and his henchmen but we also have this for Alexander. He was no less merciful. How do we interpret history when we read it from books? How does one interpret history? Every interpretation is bound to differ depending on national symbols and what is classed as socially normal practices etc. Alexander and “great” is a word which is naturally coined, but why? For what reasons is he great? For which society is he considered great? Am I implying that Hitler is good and Alexander is bad? How many people where educated during Alexander's era in contrast to Hitler's era? The earth was flat and unexplored. The Asians have been discovered. For whom they have been discovered. Is this the correct way of thinking? How do the Indians teach history? Finally we have been discovered by Alexander.
Are these the first signs of globalization? Can we say Alexander’s empire was a type of globalization? Was that his aim? Did his countrymen agree? What if I were to speculate and state that the twenty first century Greeks do not agree with globalization? They do not what to mix with other races, they prefer to remain pure. They do not want to share their perfect society with anyone, they believe in their uniqueness and wish to stay this way. They do not want to buy into English as a global language as the rest of the world has. Perhaps I am being irrational now; there is no proof to my speculations. My statement ‘They do not want to buy into English as a global language as the rest of the world has’, instantly draws up scenarios of the Greek people questioning this. ‘Why would you say that about us? What makes it true that other countries want to speak English? Others may ask, ‘Do Cypriots agree with the fact that they are encouraged to learn English? Do the French agree with English as the common tongue? The Italians, the Russians, the Germans? How do we interpret history when we write it down? What character do we give to the phrase ‘The common language of the ancient world was Greek’? Did people of that era honestly walk around in slow motion with shiny white cloaks while the Chariots of Fire by Vangelis Papathanassiou was playing at the background? Let's try to give some character to the interpretation of ‘The common language of the ancient world was Greek’.
Are these the first signs of globalization? Can we say Alexander’s empire was a type of globalization? Was that his aim? Did his countrymen agree? What if I were to speculate and state that the twenty first century Greeks do not agree with globalization? They do not what to mix with other races, they prefer to remain pure. They do not want to share their perfect society with anyone, they believe in their uniqueness and wish to stay this way. They do not want to buy into English as a global language as the rest of the world has. Perhaps I am being irrational now; there is no proof to my speculations. My statement ‘They do not want to buy into English as a global language as the rest of the world has’, instantly draws up scenarios of the Greek people questioning this. ‘Why would you say that about us? What makes it true that other countries want to speak English? Others may ask, ‘Do Cypriots agree with the fact that they are encouraged to learn English? Do the French agree with English as the common tongue? The Italians, the Russians, the Germans? How do we interpret history when we write it down? What character do we give to the phrase ‘The common language of the ancient world was Greek’? Did people of that era honestly walk around in slow motion with shiny white cloaks while the Chariots of Fire by Vangelis Papathanassiou was playing at the background? Let's try to give some character to the interpretation of ‘The common language of the ancient world was Greek’.
A friend of mine went to France and he used the common language in order to ask an individual for instructions to how to go to the Louvre. The French replied, "Parlez vouz francais?" My friend replied "Parlez vous Greco?" The Frenchman confronted his ignorance by giving him instructions to the Louvre in English. A very similar scenario happened to a friend of mine who travelled to Italy. I am not being irrational; there is some truth in my words. Did the Persians enjoy the fact that they spoke Greek? Did they feel as if they have been blessed in their knowledge of the language? The Indians or the Egyptians? Why was the ancient Greek language not preserved? Why did the conquered countries revert back to their native languages? How many people were educated in the ancient world? I accept the fact that the common written language was Greek, but what about the spoken tongue? Let's give some more character to how we interpret history.
In Cyprus the spoken language is a mixture of dialogues due to the many conquerors of the island, despite the fact that the written language of the island is Greek. The people of Cyprus who live in the cities they speak a much truer form of the Greek language but it is still not considered true Greek. In Paphos, a small city to the southwest of Cyprus, they have words that originate solely from the region. The less people from the villages who have been isolated from other cultures speak very differently in contrast to the people from the cities. So what character shall I give to the phrase ‘The common language of the ancient world is Greek’? To provide more depth to the statement, there, are Greeks who dislike the sound of the Cypriot dialog and do not consider it to be ‘proper’ Greek. The same response is given with the Cypriots challenging the Greek dialog, for the Cypriots the Athenian Greek is a dialog. It can be compared to the difference between a London accent and a Scottish accent. The Scottish accent is harsher with dropped vowels and uncompleted words, in some ways just like the Cypriots. The same comparisons could be made in English, with the American and Australian accent, or for the Spanish, the Mexican and Latino accent. The same human behaviour that is demonstrated all around the world. How do we interpret history? It really astounds me that in a small island like Cyprus, you can find such a variety in dialogs. Especially outside of the cities due to the isolated regions and lack of education, in Greece during the ancient times how many dialogs would there have been? How many people were educated in ancient times is a very important question. And to give some more character, if in today's society there is a problem with illegal immigrants, despite the technology, radars and public cameras. How hard was it in the ancient times for immigrants to travel to another city? Similar to Cyprus where many conquering countries came and left aspects of their influence, over the generations the Cypriot dialect was born. Despite the fact that there were schools teaching the Greek language this phenomenon occurred. How come street life have such an impact on the education?
Just as in the English language with Australian, Scottish and American accents. Because of the vast land of the Americans there are stark differences in pronunciation from Texas to New York. How were languages spoken during the ancient times? With less education and media.
Is it possible that ego can blind an individual’s ability to learn a second language? Is there a possibility that an individual’s ego can incite disdain towards another for learning more than one language? Is it possible nationalism is halting people from becoming educated? Or is that the incorrect translation of nationalism? Would a Persian, for example, mock another Persian for learning Greek? I know Cypriots who would mock fellow Cypriots for learning English. Was the concept of globalization known during Alexander's time? Did he try to accomplish that? Was Alexander influenced by other cultures? Persia for example? Did he allow ‘foreigners’ to enter into his army? Were they treated as equals and paid wages?
The common language of the ancient world, according to mainstream history, was Greek. Did he educate the foreigners? How did his countrymen feel about this? How do Modern Greek nationals feel about the Albanian’s and Cypriots speaking Greek? This scenario is very similar to the Americans giving education to the Africans, the English and the Caribbean's, Spanish and Native Americans. So did the ancient Greeks approve of his actions? I have an Albanian friend that went to school in Greece. One day the teacher entered the classroom and said, "Any Albanians please raise their hands ". As they did he said to them "You will respect us and don't create problems to our society". In Cyprus there are Indians and Pakistan immigrants, many Cypriots have individuals from the aforementioned countries as housemaids. “I do not allow them to sit at our table during lunch or dinner, they have a table outside in the garage” a Cypriot said.
At this point, the lack of communication and inability to express my emotions and thoughts to others began causing some paranoia. The abuse of skunk it is not helping, I am smoking three grams a day. I have friends from Greece and Cyprus who have abandoned me, they are angry at me. Despite the fact that I have not mention that I am writing this, in my mind they call me a traitor. I feel a numbness of the chest, a deep panic. My thoughts are having an impact on my reality, in my mind my friends have left me, they are angry at me. I have no friends and this belief has become an irrefutable truth. I do not communicate with them in anymore because I believe that when they read this, they will disown me. It is a real possibility. These thoughts perforated my mind, interrupting my train of thought while I was writing “I do not allow them to sit in our table during lunch or dinner time, I have a table for them outside in the garage”. For me it’s not shocking, it’s just another example of history being repeated though human behaviour. As with the Americans and the Africans, Spanish and Native Americans and the English with the Caribbean's. Modern Greeks they call Alexander ‘Great’, but for what reason? I’m aware of my irrational thought process but could it be because Alexander enforced Greek as the universal language? Is it because he conquered most of the known ancient world and happened to be Greek? Could this be why he is great to them? I could ask the same question to the French about Napoleon. The Italians concerning the Roman Empire, and the English about the British Empire. I believe Alexander's acts of conquering and expansion were more instinctive than a premeditated action. He murdered and enslaved countless people. Sadly we do not have videos and images of his campaign to compare to Hitler's.
Because of the time he committed such acts, I haven’t decided if I should consider him to be a bad individual. His actions, erratic and irrational as it may seem now, were in fact instinctive and reflected the nature of the era he lived in. Even Greece was divided into city states and there was a succession of civil unrest and war between nations. If the country was not united, what can we say about the state of mind of the people? Was there a lack of awareness in some specific subjects? A combination of selfishness, a lack of communication and thinking beyond their city walls and narrow-mindedness were all common traits experienced during this era. Individuals formed their decisions via legends, myths and the divine words prophesised by the oracles. What made Alexander into an exceptional individual? If we briefly explore his accomplishments, he managed to unite Greece. In his era, numbers won the war. If we briefly compare both Alexander’s and Hitler’s era and even today’s warfare, the numbers of soldiers have decreased because of the military training, tactics and equipment. Nowadays, tactics wins the war, not numbers. In Gaugamela, tactics won the battle against the enormous Persian army.
Alexander considered Persia as the capital of his empire. In order for him to consider a foreign city as his capital, he did not believe that Greece was at the centre of the universe. He saw something better and he did not try to recreate it in his homeland. Persia possibly felt like home to him as any other city in Greece. He was fairly open in terms of allowing foreigners to serve in his army and used Persian war elephants. He was not so patriotic as to ignore the fact that other countries were better at other things than his country. He acknowledged this fact and made full use of this. By acknowledging and absorbing other influences to expand his knowledge, helped him to develop a scientific mind. As ambitious as it may have seemed during this era, he tried to adopt Greek as the common language. From this perspective, he displayed characteristics which one could argue was not common during this time. Some may go further and state that he was exceptional, if not a genius. Through sheer wit and ambitious nature, he brought western culture to the new age, if not globalization. Although he displayed qualities of a genius, at the same time he regularly consulted oracles, believed in twelve Gods and sacrificed bulls in their name. He often acted out of cruelty, had no qualms with slaying and enslaving others. He showed little mercy and inflicted pain on others when he saw fit to do so. Such behaviour is often confusing. He has a tactical approach to warfare which has seen him defeat vast numbers of his opponents with ease but at the same time, he displays such devotion to religion. How does the brain process these functionalities which are miles apart? How does the brain make the distinction between science, religion and mass killing?
In my mind, I am trying to make scenarios of what would have been the outcome if Hitler succeeded. What would have been the common language? There are so many external influences, how could the German language adapt? If we compare this to Alexander’s era, the task would be immense, if not impossible. The sheer number of nomadic languages that were prevalent during ancient times in a way made it easier for the Greek language to be adopted as the Lingua Franca. However, when the Greek empire eventually fell, the language was not preserved. The way that I have interpreted history and how languages were used during ancient times, to achieve the same result in the nineteenth century is virtually impossible. However, the result has been achieved according to other people’s interpretation of history due to the imagery of perfect humans wearing shiny white togas, walking in slow motion to the Chariots of Fire by Vangelis Papathanassiou being played in the background. For me this is impossible, thus impossible for Hitler to introduce the German language as a common medium of communication due to geographical and cultural (human rights) barriers.
As soon I wrote the word “impossible”, my mind interrupted my chain of thoughts and suddenly I start to wonder if the phrase everything is possible is correct. For a common language to filter through an entire empire, the only way for this to be effective, is through fear, violence and over time. What is people oppose the adoption of a language being forced upon them? How would they react to the adoption of a language that is not theirs? Is it entirely impossible to adopt the Greek language thru Alexander’s empire, the whey it was spoken by the Athenians? Judging by this, one could argue that it is not impossible. With knowledge, rationality and imagination you can set the boundaries for the possibility and say that everything is possible. In this case, the awareness of human behaviour set the boundaries for what is possible. We must understand how the human mind works through time and distance. It may be presumed ambitious to adopt one single language, but if you understand how the human brain works and accept the variation by the same source then you can have a language that can be understood by all. In order to accept this, there must be a combination of levelheadedness, less ignorance and selfishness to fully embrace differing languages.
From this example, it seems that awareness has various levels. It is infinite and expands by knowledge, but also we have to control our ego because this can blur or severely taint our awareness. In other words, in order to fully exercise awareness, it is imperative to have self-awareness in order to control your emotions, ego and the feelings associated with the subject. Countries who had colonies around the world did not practise self awareness. English, Spanish and ancient Greeks and Romans they wore ignorant about this subject. They mock and believed they wore superior, their ignorance lead to racism and racism lead to the creation of groups and in time conspiracies and revolutions.
During Hitler’s era education was more mainstream and on a bigger scale. People were taught about history and thus this they learnt about the consequences of Alexander’s war. They referred to his killings and murders, the families who lost their loved ones. How do we teach history? From what side is each part of history taught? Do Cypriots have a scientific approach to the subject? Do they teach the Persians side of the story? For the Cypriots, were the Persians the enemy and Alexander a glorified hero? Alexander’s act was instinctive of his era, but at the same time he showed characteristics of a genius. I am confused as I cannot figure out if the genius part of the brain coincided with the instinctive side of the brain. Was the instinctive side of the brain so strong because it lacked awareness? Was our brain during that era immature and not fully developed? There is only one main difference that I have identified during Alexander and Hitler’s era and that comes down to human behaviour. If we compare the number of wars committed by humans and the number of sacrifices made to varying Gods during ancient times to Hitler’s era, there is a notable degree of human behaviour. Does it vary in society? How does Europe compare to less civilised countries? If we study the behaviour of les s civilised countries, it may provide us with an insight or clue into what humanity was like during Alexander’s era. Despite his level of education and the legalities concerning human rights, one would expect Hitler to have been more aware of his actions.
Although his warfare was by far more complex in contrast to Alexander’s era, what is most apparent is the fact that Hitler lived in what resembled a more civilised, democratic and educated society. This is what makes Hitler’s era far more advanced when compared with Alexander’s era. The firepower is irrelevant but the fact that civilisation evolved into a more “educated” species demanded more sophisticated strategies and of course opponents.
Due to these elements and other external factors, it makes it hard to accurately compare both parties. If we look at how technology was used during war efforts, this allowed more battles to take place at the same time in various places in Europe. Some may argue that communication has made it a lot easier for us. During ancient times, things must have unfolded at a much slower pace. Imagine if Alexander wanted to send a message from India to Macedonia? How long would it have taken for the message to be sent and returned? Through the use of radio and other innovative technologies, this has helped to aid war efforts immensely but also it made it even more complicated.
If we use this analogy, it would have been impossible for Alexander to be both a general and politician during Hitler’s era; as the task was far too great for one individual to do it single handily which is why different roles were assigned. If we compare the campaigns of influential leaders such as Napoleon and Genghis Khan, the same conditions were not applied, therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that Hitler was not an effective general.
As we have evolved, the need to focus on many points almost instantaneously, is another functionality that separates the ancient times from the nineteenth century. With evolution comes more burden and stress. More stress leads to more psychological problems. Ancient times may have presented dire situations and may have been incredibly tough on the body. Can you imagine marching from Macedonia to India? However, we must remember that “progress” is at a gradual pace and requires one step at a time, one fight at a time, in contrast to the non-stop evolving nature of the nineteenth century. The ability and necessity to perform various actions concurrently is almost a legal requirement and almost certainty a new era for humankind. Similarly, to when Alexander introduced the concept of globalization to western civilisation. I have used Hitler as a main figure in history. Through his campaign and the use of radio, I have noticed that the main difference between the aforementioned centuries is down to awareness. Hitler did not discover electricity, he merely used it to help his campaign. He did not use it to lead human kind to a new era. However, Alexander is considered as one of the most influential individuals in western culture because his universalist aspirations exposed them to a new era. The question remains, was he aware of his actions or did he act instinctively? I have mentioned that his actions were instinctive because of the era. Out of instinct he yearned dominate, similar to when a male wants to be the domineering character within the family. By dominating the ancient world, without fully understanding the consequences of his actions, he introduced globalisation to the western world, purely by accident.
There was no such term to define globalisation, but upon interpreting Alexander’s actions, historians have associated his actions and name his efforts as globalisation (the formalisation of a common law, currency and education). With this in mind, were his actions instinctive or a stroke of genius? Upon delving deeper into Alexander’s history, I have discovered something that has distorted my thoughts and thus created confusion:
"... I wish all of you now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily in peace. All mortals from now on shall live like one people, united and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. You should regard the whole world as your country - a country where the best govern-, with common laws and no racial distinctions. I do not separate people as many narrow minded others do, into Greeks and Barbarians. I’m not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is a barbarian. If ever there appear differences among you, you must not resolve them by taking to arms; you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I shall act as your negotiator. You must not think of God as an authoritarian ruler, but you should consider him as common father, so that your conduct resembles the uniform behaviour of brothers who belong to the same family. For my part I consider all -whether they be white or black-, equal, and I would like you to be not only the subjects of my common-wealth, but also participants and partners. Within my powers I shall endeavour to fulfil all my promises. You should regard the oath we have taken tonight as a symbol of love..."
 If this text is true I initially interpreted that Alexander's actions were  instinctive. However, upon further analysis I was wrong, he was well aware of his actions. His quote" For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is a barbarian" reinforces the notion that ancient Greeks considered the rest of the world Barbarians. Thus highlighting their sheer ignorance and irrationality. With such behaviours a commonly practiced, it makes sense that they were not united as one country. There is lack of awareness in their society. Intelligence or individuality were not required as knowledge came from an elite, select few and was passed on to the rest. Knowledge and awareness are totally different functionalities.
By calling the rest of the world barbarians resembled the behaviour of Italy and France during the Renaissance and echoed the behaviour of the British during the Victorian times. It was never a Golden Age for the Greeks as individuals. The knowledge came from the few and they pass it on and because of their lack of awareness they called large numbers of Nomad tribes, of the ancient times, barbarians.
Each person has his own idea of a Golden Age, from my perspective, there is nothing "golden" about it.  I understand the fact that ideas from the few gave birth to the western civilisation as we know it today. Those ideas that I have mentioned came from the few. History in this instance, has followed a recurring theme; and has repeated itself. The knowledge from an elite sector of the population has filtered down to the rest of us. This "recycled" knowledge, coupled with a lack of awareness, create the perfect ingredients for ignorance. There is a misconception that generations born during the classical times of Greece were born intelligent, that their DNA was more advanced than the rest of the world. Whereas in reality, nothing has changed.  The human behaviour seen during those times are the mimic the human behaviour displayed in the twenty-first century. 
Alexander said that he was" not interested in the origin or race of citizens,” this suggests that there was racism. Through his oath and ideology, there was not any type of evolution to the human mind which interestingly was in contrast to Hitler's era, even to the twenty-first century. That oath can be said even today, the societies haven't changed. If he said" If ever there appeared differences among you, you must not resolve them by taking to arms; you should resolve them in peace. If need be, I shall act as your negotiator".  Humans were instinctive beings, not much awareness to their actions. When conflict arose, people often resorted to violence in order to resolve their differences. Human behaviour it has been repeated again and again through time. Nothing drastic has changed from the time of Alexander until today.
The most important change concerning human behaviour has been the decrease of Gods and prejudice, the belief in stories and legends and actions through oracles and symbolism.  I have no doubt that Alexander's vision was to adapt globalization. He was the first to try to apply such a massive task, in the western world. His level of awareness was acutely high. He had the "idea" that all the great scientific minds have.
If the oath is true, which for me is a possibility, it states that “you should regard the whole world as your country- a country where the best govern, with common laws and no racial distinctions”. With knowledge, rationality and imagination boundaries can be established and conditions can be formed in order to make things possible. His oath embodies imagination. This imagination is what separates the purpose of his campaign to the campaigns of other aspiring leaders such as Napoleon and Genghis Khan.
By declaring Babylon as the capital of his empire, he literally believed what the oath was saying “Regard the whole world as your country”. For him, the race of the citizens was irrelevant and unimportant, but to have one global government where the best govern. Using this analogy, the impossible was made possible. By putting appropriate boundaries in place to control his ego and selfishness, he was able to understand how humanity works. He was realistic and did not expect to create a utopian society with perfect beings.
If I try to envisage what kind of character Alexander had, it is quite possible to assume that given his nature, he spent substantial periods of time by himself and did not view his entourage as his friends. He acted with caution, during times of instability, and only shared his ideas with very few. How do you feel about the idea of globalization? Possibly the same fallings the ancient Greeks had. How do you feel having a foreigner sitting next to you in your class room? Let’s be frank, Alexander was fully aware that he had more enemies than friends. It is interesting to think that in modern times when assassinations were fairly common on Presidents, why I have not read similar tales of assassinated attempts on Alexander’s life?
In Greece how is Alexander’s history taught in comparison to other countries? Do they adopt a scientific method or is it highly influenced by nationalism? In other words, are they subjective or biased? How does the media portray Alexander or for that matter, any part of history? Is the educational system influenced by the media and thus attempts to entertain its’ students rather than stick to facts? Sometimes I feel like I am being judged by three different societies: English, Greek and Cypriot society. In one part of my brain, the Greeks treat me with contempt and the majority sees it as an insult and very personally. Some are very aggressive towards me. They are taking it more personally, because Alexander is part of their history. In my mind, I create a conversation with military men from Greece because as far I am concerned they are subjective and not biased. As professionals they should see my point of view and not view it as a personal attack or an insult. A part of my brain believes that because of their profession, it requires them to use common sense and rationality. More importantly, they should not allow their sense of nationalism to cloud their thoughts. Instead, they should try to accept my point of view and not see it as an insult. I do not mind if they disagree, I am happy with acceptance because balance is what I am looking for. Despite the fact that they are military men, some are surprised by my beliefs and see it as an insult. Should I class them as unprofessional? Is their way of thinking irrational? Why has a part of my brain chosen military men? Why didn’t I chose fisherman, restaurant owners or other occupations?
In an attempt to answer the following, I assume that the reason why the mind brought the subject of the military men was because war was the main subject. When I am thinking about certain subjects my brain instantly makes connections. I have no control of this part of my brain. Initially my brain focused on the “military men” topic and then I broadened my analysis further and posed the same question to journalist and politicians. They must control their passion in their occupation. Logic must be at the forefront of their mind, not passion or emotion. Rationality must overcome irrationality. However, I am still thinking about the fishermen and the restaurant owners, am I underestimating their intelligence by accepting their irrationality in this subject? It is not an occupational requirement to think in the same way a military man or politician thinks. Is it wrong to categorise the level of awareness of an individual based on their occupation? In my mind, sometimes even politicians and journalists display an element of irrationality which can be both frightening and confusing. In my mind, people are aggressive towards me and are often violent.
The Cypriots on the other hand, are more sceptical and are not driven by passion. They accept the situation but do not necessarily agree. However, due to the on-going tensions between Greece and Cyprus, they may adopt a more risk-averse method and blindly follow the Greeks.
To me, the British adopt a more diplomatic approach. They can see the connection and the similarities. Some individuals are blinded by passion, however, others are more understanding. It is more possible to have a civilised conversation about the subject without fear or animosity. The debate is natural and driven by rationality. I thoroughly enjoy having such conversations with the English. I feel more at ease and even crack a smile or two and find that the tension experienced from the Greeks and Cypriots have been alleviated.
History has a habit of mirroring human behaviour, if we explore history right from the Prehistoric age to the modern age, through the arts, we can interpret habits, activities and mental wellbeing at that time. During the Prehistoric age, survival and being one with nature was key which is what we see and interpret from the paintings inside the caves from that period. We see images of animals or people hunting animals. Based on these paintings, we understand the need for humans to be innovative and explore ways to create. The paintings could be used to tell their children a story which can be passed on to different generations. Did they tell stories to their children, while sitting around the fire? Were they capable of such activities? What actions need to take place inside our brains, in order to react to storytelling? Do we have to be aware of the situation, coupled with imagination and personal character? Perhaps they used the paintings as a way to document a situation, similar to what photo- journalists do today? Or do they use the paintings to plan their next hunt like what generals do to plan their strategy in modern day warfare? Is it possible to think that whilst an individual was painting others mocked them because they were doing something that was regarded as a waste of time? Are some defending those who are painting? Or do others remain silent even though they may agree with what they are doing? Do others agree with the mocking? Are some jealous of him? Do others approach him out of curiosity and ask him about their strange actions? Which behaviour came first? The ability to observe, integrate with their surroundings and to create tools so they can hunt or to observe and paint?
Both actions require observation. In order to be able to hunt an animal, they must observe and use an effective hunting method. We did not discover science. Humans are scientific beings by nature. In order to support my claims, I used to go hunting with my friends. Each prey needs its own approach. Some need to be ambushed in order to lure it into a trap. Others require constant movement, stay low to the ground and communicate by pointing their hunts to whichever direction they should follow. Also a good team needs to acknowledge the best hunter. The one who is most apt to lead the hunt. This method is used in exactly the same way by animals. The team consulted the wisdom of the elders, even if they were not physically part of the hunt. There was conflict among the group. The elders were observing and laughing at the stupidity of the younger minds. In some occasions they had to step in to calm the younger spirits. Prehistoric humans had similar brain functionalities and actions as the modern human being. This makes me wonder how the human brain evolved, which is troubling.
Communication, observation, comparison and reaching a conclusion are the fundamentals of science, if not the fundamentals of everything. We had this functionality from prehistoric times. Even animals apply such fundamentals: when orcas create waves, they perform such an action via communication, observation and comparison, in order to reach a conclusion. So many questions arise from this. If they are able to communicate, is there a terminology for this action? Is this regarded as science? Before the melting of the polar icecaps and the emergence of floating icebergs, did they know about this technique ten thousand years ago? Were they aware of this? Did the orcas adapt according to the circumstances? Is adaption for the orcas as complicated as it is for humans? Does their ego get in the way of their awareness and thus affect their ability to survive? Do they evolve as thinkers in the same way that humans do? If we compare “consciousness” to the example of the orcas, it makes me think that it has very little to do with adaptation and thus with awareness. Through sheer observation and an acknowledgement of the difference on their hunting ground, orcas have adapted to climate change by learning and passing this knowledge to the next generations. What I am seeing in these videos from my point of view is an immensely complicated procedure which takes a highly intelligent mind to perform.
In other videos I have seen, orcas adopt other tactical methods to confuse their prey by creating bubbles with their nostrils. In order to create this reaction, they have to know what action is needed. They recognise what we call panic and confusion. They understand the implications of such emotions, for panic creates confusion which in essence, distorts the mind. Orcas apply such methods because of its effectiveness. Orcas are effective predators through their ability to observe and imitate such hunting strategies. Through the acquisition of knowledge and learned behaviour, orcas pass on “memes” (cultural practices transmitted from one mind to another) and even go one step further to perfecting their techniques to ensure their survival. Can we deduce that orcas are displaying some form of self-awareness? Orcas are clearly aware of their surroundings and by observing emotions, they are able to replicate this and create the same state of mind to another animal in order to make the hunt more effective.
The level of intelligence that orcas display is evident if not remarkable, however, is their awareness greater than other individuals? Based on my observations, it suggests that orcas possess higher levels of self-awareness than many individuals in the twenty first century. This theory has been largely stimulated by some of the videos I have seen where orcas are perfecting their technique via trial and error. There is a video I can recall quite vividly, it shows the orcas practising their new technique and when they have finished they place the seal back on the ice berg. If I make direct comparisons between orcas and humans, humans seem rather primitive when compared to the complex nature of orcas. Were humans during prehistoric times as barbaric as we think they were? Did they hunt solely for necessity and sustainability or did they display behaviours of greed, over kill and sadism, behaviours that have become the social norm in this modern age? Surely it depends on the character of the individual? The character of the tribe leader and what was classed as the social norm? The notable difference between the prehistoric era and now, is that we have definitely lost touch with nature. We consume more than we need and pay little thought of the consequences. What are the underlining reasons for such behaviour? Is it a lack of discipline or awareness? Despite our advance in thinking, we have become extremely ignorant and have failed to adopt the same methods as the orca, we do not place the seal back on the iceberg. In some professionals, knowledge is key. Through knowledge, products can be promoted and through a lack of self-awareness we blindly accept these products even if we do not need them and without posing questions. Through time we have become immensely knowledgeable, you could say that we have surpassed orcas, but for some reason this knowledge has led to our downfall.
It is like we have no control of our minds, or rather we have lost the ability to think independently, which supports the notion that we are by far more psychologically disturbed as a society in contrast to ancient times.
Michael Kassialos is a folk artist from Asia. What interests me about this individual is how he managed to unfold as a person. I can connected him to the first individual who painted the images in the caves. Through the previous paragraphs I have questioned myself which human behaviour came first. The hunting, gathering of crops or painting? From this man, there is a possibility that the painting came second. Undeniably this human behaviour was experienced by very few.
I am more interested in Kasialos’ brain rather than any other classical painter. Kasialos was one of the very few men who decided to break the mould of his society. By no means am I saying that he was a better man. Hunters are performing equally complicated actions. They understand the weather, migration of animals and the necessity to work as a team in order to kill large animals without the use of gun power. Through the use of spears and ambush, a hunter should have awareness of this immensely complicated task. Any athlete who is a part of a team can tell you how complicated a task is, to work with a team. The importance of controlling their feelings so that they won’t affect the team. With this in mind, the prehistoric man is not as barbaric as I thought. I can confidently say that prehistoric humans were as complete as we are now. However, through Kasialos, I can say that the activity of the brain that made this man separate himself from the group and start to paint, came second to the hunter-gatherer. Kasialos had the components of what is defined as a scientific mind. He was observing, comparing and executing the habits and activities of others through his paintings. I firmly believe that a still image is not a correct means of translating a situation. It takes thinking and the ability to control our feelings in order to have translate the situation rationally through images. In Kasialo’s case, how was the society back then? He was born one hundred and twenty five years ago. If we revert back to the example of the caves, was he mocked by others? Was he admired or questioned about his actions? How did the average person feel about Kasialos’ activities?
Was he mocked, belittled or criticised? Or was he applauded and admired? He did not live in the most liberated of times, which is demonstrated in his paintings. What can be understood about the female anatomy through Kasialos’ paintings? Can a distinction be made between reality and fiction? What was the real situation in this era? What we do know is that women had very little say and were forced to marry at a young age during that time. Women were expected to show obedience and submission. As the head of the family, it was the father’s duty to choose a suitable husband for their daughter without the opinion of their wife. How did the daughter feel during this time? What were the consequences if she refused to marry?
Kasialos was very observant and manages to capture such issues in his paintings. He illustrates the oppression of women at the hands of a patriarchal society. He emphasises this point by placing women behind men with their head lowered. Interesting, in all of his paintings, he presents women always looking down and in groups. I wonder, if Kasialos forced his children to get married? Did he choose their occupation or did he grant them the freedom to choose for themselves? Through his work, it is evident that he had an awareness of how a society creates the character of an individual. With this in mind, there is a strong possibility that he too decided the fate of his children.
I am trying to find a distinctive difference between the hunter-gatherer and Kasialos. How is it possible that he was aware of the situation and the majority were completely oblivious to it? How do we know that he was aware of the situation? Quite simply by the way he painted women in a subordinate fashion, suggests that he was fully aware of their place in society. Kasialos started as a hunter-gatherer and did not have the liberties to choose what he wanted to do. So what stimulated him to be aware of the situation of women? Were other hunter-gatherers that experienced the same conditions as Kasialos, aware of the situation of women? Did they notice that women were always looking down because of their inferiority? Did they understand the message that was said by the priest to women at their marriage ceremony: “The woman should be afraid of the man”? Or did they choose to ignore it and be absent-minded because they felt powerless to change a system that had been fully integrated in society? Or did they accept it without question because it has been an ideology that has been passed from generation to generation?
With all these impeding factors, how did Kasialos manage to break the mould? What has separated Kasialos from the majority that have not noticed the situation of women? The part that women played during this era, echoed sub-ordinance and obedience, however, were they intelligent? Why did Kasialos’ behaviour come second to the hunter-gatherer? In contrast to the prehistoric period the method of hunting and gathering has evolved via the use of weaponry and machinery, but the relationship among the sexes remains passive. Why is this the case? We have perfected and mastered the art of hunting-gathering but the behaviour between male and female is still creating conflict. It’s an obsession I feel that I must find the equation in order to solve the problem. Just like the interpretation of history. Human behaviour is like an addiction, at times it is very frustrating and I want to give up, but I cannot stop thinking about it. At the same time, when I think I have found a suitable solution to the equation, it gives me a great sense of satisfaction, adrenalin through my entire body. The first time I can remember this happening was when I was with my friend in Milomery waterfall. I am convinced that at that split second this made me question and withdraw myself even more. This was awareness and this has expanded through experience and knowledge. The mind performs this process, it’s buzzing, but sometimes I don’t know if I want this to happen because it is a never-ending process. Sometimes it can be draining and make my head feel heavy. Part of my brain insists that I write more examples for other people to understand but I need to sleep. It persistently gives me scenarios about subjects that I think about. If I don’t write down an idea, a part of the brain presents to me, I will forget it in a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds.
Even if I try to remember, I have to write it down because I will forget. A part of the brain is getting irate. My brain is saying “You are lazy and should have a notebook with you to note everything down”. At this point I am not sure if I am actually saying this to myself or if it is another part of my brain where I do not have control. I think I am losing control because I can’t tell if I am thinking about it or if someone else is talking to me inside my brain. I am tired and confused. Things that have appeared forgotten have suddenly emerged. For instance, childhood memories. Those memories are causing anxiety, distortion and panic. I am getting angry and confused because of something that happened twenty or twenty five years ago. I am not even sure if the memories are real or a fabrication of my mind. This incident happened somewhere in 2014.
I will elaborate on this at a further date.