What do you stand for? Declare yourself!
I am increasingly frustrated with the concept of inner-peace. The more thought I spend on it, the more it occurs to me that this notion is as much a voodoo science as "economics" or "edginess."
I am finding that my "self" in the zen sense is at rest when I allow myself to be unaffected (which is not uncommon). I am told by others that this is actually me not dealing with my emotions, but I wholly disagree. I think I have been taught to covet - and to leave time for little else. I am unaffected because so little of it actually matters. A two hour conversation about someone else's life only takes away from my own. A drawn out discussion about something I cannot change reminds me of that pain and frustration - but does not eliminate it.
The problem, as I see it, is that because inner-peace means something different to everyone - all of our methods are conflicting. Mine interferes with his...interferes with hers...and so on. So are the zen-pool-inner-selves of American youngsters so stirred up that "time well spent" is a plausible achievement? Perhaps communes are not a terrible idea afterall. To me, the desert island effect is not so much a punishment, but rather a means to an end. Is isolation really something to be feared? We've been taught that a community of alike peers will stifle growth, but how can that true? There is consistent growth in music; a community of alike peers. There is consistent (if not entirely unproductive) growth in politics. Radical change will always be possible because we are extreme beings - we do not need opposition to accomplish it. There need not be a struggle.
So the question, I suppose, would be - when to isolate and when to immerse. Are either a means to contentment - or is it a matter of balance (as some believe all things are)?
I am finding that my "self" in the zen sense is at rest when I allow myself to be unaffected (which is not uncommon). I am told by others that this is actually me not dealing with my emotions, but I wholly disagree. I think I have been taught to covet - and to leave time for little else. I am unaffected because so little of it actually matters. A two hour conversation about someone else's life only takes away from my own. A drawn out discussion about something I cannot change reminds me of that pain and frustration - but does not eliminate it.
The problem, as I see it, is that because inner-peace means something different to everyone - all of our methods are conflicting. Mine interferes with his...interferes with hers...and so on. So are the zen-pool-inner-selves of American youngsters so stirred up that "time well spent" is a plausible achievement? Perhaps communes are not a terrible idea afterall. To me, the desert island effect is not so much a punishment, but rather a means to an end. Is isolation really something to be feared? We've been taught that a community of alike peers will stifle growth, but how can that true? There is consistent growth in music; a community of alike peers. There is consistent (if not entirely unproductive) growth in politics. Radical change will always be possible because we are extreme beings - we do not need opposition to accomplish it. There need not be a struggle.
So the question, I suppose, would be - when to isolate and when to immerse. Are either a means to contentment - or is it a matter of balance (as some believe all things are)?