An approach (Tom Torr's books):

"What I am now" is inscribed in the neurons and chemistry of the brain, and the state and function of the organs and their behavior. Engaging with this means facing the reality of the body; cognition and the "Self" are considered parts of this body. Cognition cannot drive evolution into conflict and still maintain the equilibrium of "what I am now"; for equilibrium, it is necessary that the movements of cognition be compatible with the findings that the body's possibilities and limitations determine for it. Otherwise, that incompatibility will spread to awareness, approach, perception, the "Self," and consequently, to "what I am now."

Cognition cannot be independent of the body, and for equilibrium, it is forced to submit to its frameworks. If it does not submit, it cannot make the brain's cognitive system accompany it in a way that vitalizes its movement, and the world of cognition, in turn, becomes dual. Only observation, experience, and trial and error—that is, rationality—can guide this duality toward integration.

Perhaps if we consider rationality to be the deference of the "Self" to its own totality and moving in harmony with this totality, then the lack of rationality could be seen as a misuse of the notion of free will, an overstepping of the "Self," and its domination over its own totality; as if instead of the voice of the "Self" being a representative of my totality, it becomes a sound detached from the totality, produced almost solely in the mouth.

In this interpretation, it is not unknown why and how belief plays a cancerous role in creating a gap between "self" and the totality and is castrating. Around this cancerous tissue, which, compared to the functional biases of cerebral cognition, is the equivalent of putting itself to sleep or into hypothermia, the path of observation, experience, and trial and error becomes narrow and rugged. Cognition, and subsequently awareness, evolutionary intelligence, and approach, lose their fluidity, rationality dims, and the brain's perceptual efficiency declines. Of course, the degree of this rationality and its absence is itself part of "what I am now."

A thought experiment:

Language is not a passive instrument for conveying thought, but an active force that shapes the very contours of our intellect. It constructs the boundaries of our perception, suggesting that our cognitive world is fundamentally intertwined with the linguistic frameworks we inherit. This entanglement raises profound questions about the autonomy of thought and the origins of our ideas.Within this context, civilization presents a complex duality. Its established customs and linguistic norms can create a sense of order and facilitate communication, yet they may also impose an orientation that distances individuals from a more fundamental state of being. This raises a critical inquiry: how does one navigate the structures of society without losing touch with a more intrinsic, personal equilibrium?The notion of free will becomes particularly fraught. Is our sense of agency a genuine expression of self-determination, or is it an illusion shaped by the semantic structures of language and the subjective criteria of our culture? This perspective invites a deeper examination of the forces that guide our actions, suggesting they may be more complex and less conscious than we typically assume.This leads to the idea of a 'personal philosophy'—not as a fixed doctrine, but as an evolving 'approach' to existence. It is a way of being that acknowledges the influence of language and civilization while striving for an internal coherence that transcends them. It is a path of navigating external conditioning to find a more authentic alignment.Civilization, in this light, is neither a pure good nor an absolute evil. An individual entirely devoid of its influence is a hypothetical, for it is the very fabric of our development. The unbiased individual, were they to exist, would benefit immensely from the tools and knowledge civilization provides, just as civilization itself is enriched by the unique perspectives of such individuals. The challenge, then, is not to reject civilization, but to engage with it in a way that fosters individual growth without succumbing to its homogenizing tendencies.Recognizing the superficiality of our knowledge and the vastness of our ignorance is not a sign of weakness, but a gateway to more profound understanding. It is in this recognition that we can begin to question the belief systems that inhibit rationality and individuality. Even when rooted in perceived truths, such systems can function as illusions, delineating permissible thoughts and constraining the spirit of free inquiry. The task is to see beyond these self-imposed limitations and embrace the open-ended nature of philosophical exploration.