There always seems to be a very fragile, ineffable, and meaningful story-like horizon on the margin of our peaceful minds when they are open to the world with no sense of a mediating self in which the world becomes a warm home that feels like you belonged-to a thousand years ago.
Yet, the self returning to its self is a self-reference paradox that leads to a collapse in passivity and an empty recursion. The self seems incapable of attaining its completion as if lack is necessary for it to exist; it must remain a nostalgia, something beyond the self.
Analogically, it is when we desire being with people, yet the moment we do so we seem to lose ourselves and the distance of incompletion necessary for the value of being-with-others to exist.
It is also the same with desiring to live as if in a movie yet not live like the movie; we want the third-person perspective and the editing to exist, that space and distance seen in art that makes us see ourselves as more than we are inside, to not be too close to ourselves.
It is as such a paradox that we desire something, like finding ourselves, yet at the same time don't want to fulfil that desire since incompletion and separation are necessary for it. How can this be solved? It feels like a curse and a cause of despair.
Kierkegaard would say that indeed we are condemned to be deserted from our homes, just like Adam and Eve had to lose Eden, their home, as they became conscious; we can't become conscious without relating what we are not, like the past-future, other people, that which is beyond.
By that we must relate to the unfamiliar, the non-self, to be a self. And from that we are forced to make a choice about our relations, and not making one is a choice itself. And what is not us is always beyond us, inexhaustible, never known for certain, uncontrollable, imagined.
Such an abandonment from God, like the fall of Eden, such a necessity of relating to the unknown --means we are forced to lose ourselves, and that is a cause of despair. Be it one we are not conscious of, in the form a weak self-collapse, or an anger towards God (Being).
From that, one leaps in faith into the uncanny and accept it, just like how we don't know for certain that we won't be in an accident yet we drive courageously (i.e. confidently being vulnerable, accepting the unknown other); this is uniting with the beyond, becoming a non-self.
In Christianity, God (Jesus) was forsaken by God (Father) to finally become God (Holy Spirit); the divinity of change and losing oneself (Jesus' death), and the supremacy of the ineffable beyond (Father's Authority) is realized in the historical relation between people and their=
inexhaustible potential (Holy Spirit). It is, as such, the divine story that the ideal self is only truly realized when the self is abandoned and turned into an unconditioned openness towards the greater other and potential history; having a higher cause/self than oneself.
Indeed the ideal self, Jesus, was that of Agape, of love. He signified and actualized his selfless personhood of love (hence becoming God) by dying for humans' sins. And as the greatest and original sin was killing another human (and by that the greatest good is to revive one)..
--his act to realize himself as the Holy Spirit and to find his ideal self of love --was to give himself up for the greater life. And so, you go towards realizing your complete self (become the trinity itself) by opening to the higher cause and greater potential of the history..
of people for them to be more alive, and that is the same sacrificial love (Agape) that makes a newborn become a human by reflecting to them the greater potential for life within them and make them realize it too. This love is divine love, that from which God creates humans.
Different archetypes and mythologies have the same idea of losing yourself to the world to find it. Buddhism has the practice of eradicating the illusion of conditioning thoughts, returning to your pre-formulated being that is one with the world, and having loving kindness to all
It seems, by that, that serenity comes from atonement, from the word at-one, with the other that is beyond, say the self we belong-to that is at the margins of solitude--by self-emptiness, be it Christianity's Kenosis, Buddhism's Śūnyatā, Taoism's Wu, or Suffism's Fana فناء etc.
Identifying with an other and trying to attain it to realize yourself has been Late Capitalism's consumerism's ethos, one that fails to recognize the desire to lose oneself and embrace the lack and not hustle to fill it; God/Self must always be attended to, but never attained.
Emptying oneself, becoming nothing, connecting to the greater beyond, embracing the mystery of the world, and accepting one's limitation --all to become atoned with the world/God/Truth/ideal-self and its empty-of-self/changing nature is the first step out of despair.
It is so because it resolved all your internal contradictions; you never try to escape yourself which is the definition of suffering (pain is the e-motive of escape, and since you can't escape yourself and your lack, you are damned to suffer if you try to escape), and second..
it is so because it is open to the other and as such always has something greater to actively attend to, care about, and go towards instead of passively recurring and collapsing on the self; boredom.
The second question is: won't my openness lead me to be misled more than before?
The second question is: won't my openness lead me to be misled more than before?
No, per definition, since the whole journey to lose and empty oneself was the journey of maturing out of naivety, of individuating out of relative conditions, to continually seek the Truth (God/Self) that is beyond all -- and by that it is the journey to get rid of delusion.
One can't reach such a composed, untroubled, and open state without wisely transforming out of the illusion of ignorance and mindlessness (to know what you don't know (modesty), and to know what to love (authenticity); the essence of Socrates' wisdom, the basis openness).
They are the basis of openness because modesty is knowing your limits (i.e. incompleteness) which is essential to being open to the greater (e.g. knowledge); and authenticity is to be mindful of yourself, to make the choice that reflect you, and to personally live your life..
which only through can you recognize your individuality and as such can recognize the individuality and equal uniqueness of the other too (be it other people, or the novelty and newness of what you can become after a transformative leap into a mystery; the greater other).
Indeed religions have humiliation under God and personal responsibility before him exactly to realize yourself and him by that, and all our Sacred places and times are about resonating with the terrorizing limitation and awe-inspiring potential greaterness of Being; The Sublime.
The third question is: What is the identity of that greater other that is beyond me and my transforming self that I should seek? What is the meaning and intrinsic value of God/Ideal so I can realize them?
[Continued Later]
[Continued Later]
@rattibha رتب
جاري تحميل الاقتراحات...