In that he’s/she’s presently thinks of himself as an uneasy blend of body and mind. He/she identifies primarily with what I call a limited portion of his/her consciousness. That portion he equates with mind or intelligence. He/she identifies with events over which he/she is aware of having some control.
Man/woman thinks of acts, for example, and acting and doing, but he does not identify himself or herself with these inner processes that make acting and doing possible. He/she identifies with what he thinks of as his/her logical thought, and the abilities of reasoning. These seem to suggest that he/she possesses and elegant, cool separation from nature, that the animals for example do not. He/she does not identify, with the processes that make his/her logical thinking possible. Those processes are spontaneous and ‘unconscious,’ so it appears that anything outside of his conscious control must be undisciplined or chaotic, and lacking in all logic.
Both religion and science are based upon such beliefs. Anything that happens spontaneously is looked upon with suspicion. The word seems to suggest elements out of control, or motion that goes from one extreme to another. Only the reasoning mind, it seems, has any idea of order, discipline, or control.
Man/woman is therefore set against his/her nature in his/her own mind, and he/she thinks he/she must control it. The fact is that man’s and woman’s consciousness can indeed become aware of — aware of — those spontaneous processes. But he/she oneself has largely closed the door of comprehension, so that he only identifies with what he/she thinks of as his/her rational mind, and tries to forget as best he/she can those spontaneous processes upon which the mind rides so triumphantly
He or she has often become frightened of his or her own creativity, then, since he or her has not trusted its source.