I like this connection i read in Lorenzo Silva´s "Carta Blanca" between unhappiness and freedom. This is his reasoning- ..."quien acepta la infelicidad sólo puede aspirar a conquistar la libertad, como estímulo para seguir enfrentando cada nuevo día que comienza...incluso llegó (el personaje) a creer que únicamente aquel que se resignara a ser infeliz podía ser de veras libre. porque la felicidad siempre engendraba el apego, y el apego, antes o después, la servidumbre" (222). So you are freer when you are unhappy and happiness only ties you to bondship. that´s why it´s so elusive and shortlived, cause other conditions set in, leaving you disatisfied sooner or later and wanting more...
i was explaining to a friend a similar logic vis a vis expectations. if you have no expectations- about people, relationships, future, etc..then you can´t be disappointed or get hurt.. cause you assume from the very beginning that you hope and desire nothing but the moment in itself... of course, in practice, these theories just go down the drain most of the times..but as an idea its great....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
>of course, in practice, these theories just go down the drain most of the times..
And that is because those thoughts are incomplete, accordingly, they have a tendency to inaction and a cowardly nihilism. They are lacking of the heroic unselfishness of whom doesn't have nothing to loose already.
Thank you once more for your interest. Forgive my musings if they seem trivial and beside the point but i wonder if u can have expectations and still have nothing to loose.. or if the two are incompatible? and i wonder if u can be unhappy and free, for doesnt/ shouldnt freedom bring some kind of happiness? Does happiness inevitably lead to sadness, because in the end, it never satisfies us, it is always momentary and therefore frustrating..
"And that is because those thoughts are incomplete, accordingly, they have a tendency to inaction and a cowardly nihilism" - i agree with you on the inaction that this incomplete idea leads to.. i wonder if the one who doesnt have anything to loose is the one who is totally free, the unhappy one.. i find the concept of heroic unselfishness a difficult one to aspire to..
This became a snowball of little misunderstandings that I believe started at this point: "felicidad siempre engendraba el apego" and "quien acepta la infelicidad sólo puede aspirar a conquistar la libertad".
Wrong start for the theory, AFAIK.
I have a different perspective. Happiness is only possible to a balanced person (see below too); now, the affection (the selfishness of not wanting to let go the object of our affection) cames only as a result of a high need of instant gratification, or if you want, poor impulse control.
I believe, from that on, we started to diverge over subjects not strictly involved in the starting question. That might be provoked by my poor english.
The whole point I wanted to reach, with my first comment to this blog post, was that (expressed like that) is a very selfish thought, proper of people with weak ego boundaries, and unrespectful to the human society basement: comunication. Is very possible that the theory is better in the context of the book... unfortunately, I don't own or know the book.
But if you want, going to your questions:
> Forgive my musings if they seem trivial
I don't think so. They are not trivial to me at all. But, be aware of my poor english when I answer.
> ...and beside the point but i wonder if u can have expectations and still have nothing to loose.. or if the two are incompatible?
Don't know what to answer to that; I feel you are giving significance to both of those concept beyond my actual definition of "expectations" and "nothing to lose". It is horrendous to relativize someone's question, but in this particular case I'll have to do it. I don't know if we are talking about the same anymore. But maybe something below may clarify my ideas to you, so wait a little:
> and i wonder if u can be unhappy and free, for doesnt/ shouldnt freedom bring some kind of happiness?
No free person is unhappy. Period. But is impossible to achieve freedom accepting unhappiness. At least, may be, accepting deferred gratification, but that is a different matter, and involves other issues, not only gratification to achieve happiness. I believe in the quote of L. Silva, happiness is confused with well-being. _Anyway_, anyway, he is totally wrong; I don't have any problem in going to that cutting edge; he introduces concepts totally irrelevant to the matter and forgets some crutial ones. At least if that is the whole quote.
So we agree at that point without noticing it, because everything started from that wrong concept named in spanish before. But, wait a little bit more:
> Does happiness inevitably lead to sadness, because in the end, it never satisfies us, it is always momentary and therefore frustrating..
I don't understand that sentence, there are mixed concepts to _my_ understanding of it, so, in my opinion sadness is not the best word there.
I'd rephrase that this way, to my point of view (hope it helps):
"Enjoyable passions dissapears when a particular object of our affection dissapears or goes adverse to us; therefor, we alternate satisfaction and dissatisfaction until this alternation comes to (depending on the individual's good will and time to evolve its characteristics) a different state of poise in front of adversities and fortunes, when the individual becomes self-controlled, unbiased, prepared for deferred gratification."
It it a perfectible state, not a reachable and instantly closed state.
I was just pointing to an stoic way of viewing this matter.
Now, Happiness is not a concept that I should not bring easily to this matters, but it is related, though. If you are interested, I consider happiness as the highest point of well-being, but happiness only happens when the last highest point of well-being is surpassed by a higher one. And everytime it happens it provokes a sure escalade of good emotions and state of mind that takes the person to reason, the mastering passions and emotions, the pursuit of Truth, the consideration of Beauty in its fair and wide value, the impulse to Goodness, and there are other virtues.
As you can easily understand, each time the highest point of well-being is reached, become more difficult to achieve again. As time goes by, and age win battles, happiness as defined before, starts to be replaced by the earning of virtues described before; leaving the individual in a fair state of well-being in its ulterior years, in spite of happiness is not achievable no more, because of its high standards at the moment. Those high standards at the latter moments is what I understand as the "expectations" you mentioned. Expectations as a result of the earning of virtues, not as a result of the need of instant gratification.
>> "And that is because those thoughts are incomplete, accordingly, they have a tendency to inaction and a cowardly nihilism"
> i agree with you on the inaction that this incomplete idea leads to..
> i wonder if the one who doesnt have anything to loose is the one who is totally free, the unhappy one..
I don't get it. I can't understand the last sentence.
But I can tell you, that I think worse of the idea of Lorenzo Silva (as is expressed in your blog post) than I said in the first place; I believe is in fact musch worst than proclive to inaction: is a procrastinating one, and provoking the impulse of it to the people unprepared to discriminate the problems involved in the issue with a clear head. As I said before, I expect that is better expressed in context, and expect that is less harmful, for the good of the readers.
> i find the concept of heroic unselfishness a difficult one to aspire to..
I don't even feel that is a difficult one. That should be because I don't have it defined as a Jesus-Christ way to give your entire life to an ideal. I see it just as a state of awareness that any time, a person in high spiritual or fisical need may appear, and a hero:
1- Find enjoyable interferring the situation for good, using its best criteria (I think i mentioned one in another comment).
2- Don't cowardice, don't walk away for any external or internal reason when that happen (delaying for minutes, hours, days, years the course of its life if necessary, puting it in risk if needed too).
3- Don't expect immediate benefits (the increasing of its virtues is not immediate), or any other benefit in worldly values for its actions regarding the issue.
4- Don't leave until the high spiritual or fisical need reduces the state of critical.
I'm not talking about spiritual needs in the sense of religious ones, I don't have a religion.
As an example, a person that jumps to the river to take another person out from drowning is a unselfish hero.
Excuse the length of this comment.
Cristian.
Post a Comment