There are so many distinctions, ideas, and opinions. I must let a person speak their mind. A response is not always necessary. I must understand that whatever I posit is simply a personal belief. The use of belief to devalue belief perhaps stems from the desire to be acknowledged or validated. It is the practice of impressing upon others an idea as some revelatory truth that they should accept. My truth is my own. I must be satisfied with that knowledge and relinquish the need to piece apart and refute another's perspective.
We are all trying to make sense of life. Everyone shares their understanding of it from time-to-time. The "This is what he/she meant" or "This is what is meant" is an exhausting exercise. If a person is not present to confirm my interpretation of what they've realized for themselves, it is not for me to make sense of for others; thus, the practice of misunderstanding. It is an already difficult task to accurately convey ones own thoughts and emotions, to ensure that what one expresses is correctly received, and all the more difficult to make any attempt at justly receiving and then sharing the thoughts of another. An idea or thing for one is never exactly what it is believed to be by another—interpretation is always a complicated matter.
I am better served by self-understanding and realization, than by some extrapolation of further thought from thoughts that are foreign or separate, albeit deceptively similar at times, to my own. Why anatomize a brilliant, shared idea? Particularly when its originator has so obviously invested a great deal of thoughtfulness in its expression and presentation already?
No comments:
Post a Comment