ORIENTATION # 978 : SELF-SENTIMENTAL CRUELTY ________________________________________ From a private conversation ________________________________________ It is like this: 1) Learning is always learning.. and learning should walk together with observation of the knowing that derives from the activity of learning.. right ? 2) When learning becomes identification in what one has been learning, then it becomes psychological sedimentation & then thats not longer an act of learning: it is merely an action of moving toward the next stage which is accumulation.. 3) Identification in the accumulation of what one has been learning is a position rich of formulas, conclusions, dogmas, compartments, truths.. whatever they are.. whether religious, intellectual, theoretical, esoterical, ideological and so on.. 4) Learning can co-exist with understanding.. Identification in the learnt things, and therefore:accumulation, cannot co-exist with understanding.. 5) When accumulation bypasses the understanding then it becomes austerity, a grim thing, caged in separative discipline, always ready to be authoritarian.. it impoverishes the psyche.. isnt it so ? It responds to the psycho-logic that there must be a beginning and an end and therefore a conclusion and thats indisputable such as : the way is the communist one.. or you shall have no other gods before me... or, formalistically: thats the way it is.. cest la vie.. and so on... Now: accumulation and identification cover all mental fields.. right ? Its not just a phenomenon relegated in the intellectual field only.. it affects the emotionality, the reactive senses of the brain, the sociality, the sentimentalisms.. toward a country perhaps, a god, the wife, the daughter, the leader, the guru, the meaning, the hopes, the status quo, and all things in which we belong.. Have you ever noticed the paradox inherent in the positive attributes we use to give to our sentimental side and our sensitivity ? It seems that there is great confusion in there: First of all because to be sentimental in not to be sensitive.. (we mix it all the time).. Second of all because we associate sentimentalisms with some sort of humanistic patent, a characteristic, exclusivity and prerogative of humans, right ? But so often ignoring the so many defections such patent has ... and that such patent has been reflecting all over the history of men.. Do you follow ? Maybe the issue can be placed through a short-cut-question which is: perhaps we detect our sentimentalism as something human, meaning: cute, normal, sensitive.. but is our sentimentalism psychologically healthy ? Please think about these things... If you look attentively then you maybe can detect that sentimentality always carries an accumulation of memories, or better to say: it carries the actual psychological pictures the brain projects toward the present experiencing-screen-of-the-mind because of its known filled of and by memories.. People struggle so greatly because of the loss of a sentimental relationship sometimes.. (I remember that american man in Bali who attempted to burn himself alive on the yard of his russian ex-girlfriends place in the middle of the night .. just because she left his the day before after 4 days relationship only !! (4 days have been enough to decide to kill himself) .. but does such loss really hurts because of the severed relationship/bond ? Or does it hurts because of the memory which still there in a mind in sentimental-modality which means: greatly dominated by accumulation ? If one loses only that memory because of some factor whatsoever, then the pain and the sentimentalism are automatically vanished as well.. Sensitivity, instead, has very little to do with memories.. It is almost always immediate and by its very cerebral nature its perceptive, non-acquisitive: it has no bonds, no moralistic boundaries, no conclusions and its pathless.. Sentimentality and conditioned emotionalism generate psychological configurations antagonistic to the natural sensitivity a mind should preserve.. Sentimentality and conditioned emotionalism are actually terribly cruel; they are responsible for fight, violence, conflict and wars .. Im not sure if we are able (or willing) to notice it.. as well: it we are also able to notice how most of our emotional field is actually constantly raped and raptured by the pasts conditionings, past pains, everlasting comparison, games of suspects and so on.. while the sentimentalism, when it works, is merely the mediator between this great weight of accumulated disturbances and the attempt to establish a little bit more comfortable pillow of acceptance.. but moving nowhere.. ________________________________________ endoffear.weebly/ eofproject.org jessicamystic
Posted on: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 11:18:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015