Archive for April 2006
Human reflexion and self reflexion is all about meaning
– the weather, the traffic situation, shopping, love, death – whenever human perception reaches the level of awareness, the notion of “meaning” slips in too. And conferring meaning to something “means” referring it to an individual and or group context. Hence individual or collective meaning is always constructed and thus not perceived in any other way than the aboriginal dreamtime has been perceived of. this admitted, whenever a certain emotional trap is gaping in life, why not just check, if all facts have been taken into consideration and if the narrative meaning built upon those facts does not use ready-mades that finally force facts out of, or , into existence.
Why not question the narrative: would there exist a different reading to the situation?
Does there exist evidence against the original reading or evidence to prove it. Feelings are not caused by people, things or events directly, but they always follow the more or less conscious subtext of meaning about them. This way, anxiety – as in opposition to normal fear – is often caused by the self statement of “I cannot bear this, and hence it must not happen”. The more absolute this demand becomes, the more anxiety tends to increase when it is – or seems to be – contradicted by reality. If the object of that paralysing fear is a person that is, in one way or another, attractive or appealing, a typical double bind is the result – on one side there is the desire, on the other side there is the fear – a double bind caused by identification of the fearful object (e.g. HIV) with the object of desire, regardless of this identification’s factual truth.
This double bind then leads to a very unpleasant feeling of dissonance, whence the tendency to raise yet another demand: “I must not have this fear because it is not reasonable and unpleasant”. Fear of fear or guilt about fear or whatever secondary level estimation about the original negative emotion does complete then the vicious circle, keeping reason and emotion trapped in the same track starting from the double bind and leading back to it, while short-circuiting different levels of reflexion.
he who is asking advice in love matters, but from his own heart, to him his heart does not speak about love.
love does end where it comes to know the reason of its own existence.
why is hatred so often reciprocated and mutual love such an exception?