self-help gurus tend to have the common advice to give: that we as individuals should delimit ourselves in order to attain our personal potentials...the rationale being that we are our own barriers.
the latter is definitely true. the first and most important step invariably calls for a paradigm shift in mentality that allows for massive internal change. this usually leads to progressive results, as a change in method almost always causes a change in outcome. and while it is true that efficiency is attained with repetition, potential does not: though we might become skilled at obtaining an objective over time, the most we ultimately achieve is that one objective--nothing more. it is at this plateau where a man is said to meet the barrier of himself. it is this very person that the gurus refer to as a man's limit, which is then advised to be superseded.
and so i come to the former in the first paragraph: should we delimit ourselves? it would seem obvious at first, but i would like to address the deeper ethical concern: to what end do we make sacrifices for the sake of continual self-delimitisation? make no mistake: there are always sacrifices to be made in one area for the purpose of improvement in another. we cannot be our best at everything--only one thing. if one were to be truly brilliant at a thing, the law says, he must be terrible at at least one thing also.
i myself have on occasion found it difficult to justify a pursuit of things which i desired, be those things clothing, food, love, attention or freedom. i have on all these occasions been aware of not only a feeling of deserving all of these things but also an awareness of my latent power to attain them whenever i wanted, in any amount and in any moment in time, at the expense of other things which i value such as self-respect, respect from others and friendships.
through my own self reflection i have found the secret that millions pay money for the gurus to tell them: you already possess the power to fulfill your desires.
no, i do not write this to inspire in you a courage to harness your inner power. on the contrary i write to speak of my tire of power itself. i grow weary of it though i have yet to use much of it in my short 22 years. my eyes no longer sparkle at power as i do not need any more of it, nor do i feel a need to protect it as i will never lose it. it is not the kind of power that decays over time, nor is it transferrable. so at this point the only thing i see fit to pursue is a life of restraint--placing limits on myself.
frankly, i was and still am in awe of my mastery over scarcity and in general my power to take anything i see fit for the taking. though i feel like i am like God in this way, my limited time on this earth clearly ensures the differentiation. so until the gurus find a way to remove the limit of mortality, i am sticking to my ethic of self-limitation.
mastery over self is a power that makes mastery over things seem meaningless. the greatest tribute to God is to become like Him in the way that He is the epitome of self-mastery.
1 comment:
a small point of contention: i feel that you adopt a very Jansenitic approach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism#Jansenist_theology) when you say that you feel God like in your ability to obtain whatever you desire. In short the Jansenists believed that humans cannot/are unable to resist God's infusion of Grace which is much ("Holy rape of the soul") like how im assuming that the object of your desire is unable to refuse your request of possession.
But from a more Catholic point of view, it is believed that humans have the free will to reject God and his Graces ("God's free initiative demands man's free response"). From this point of view, it is God who will not breach his contract of freedom of choice with us. Which is not to say that he does not have the powers to, but he won't use it to compel us to do something we are not ready to do.Therefore, in this case, "Godliness" is derived from the subject's willingness to walk towards God through his own will rather than God's possession of it.
And perhaps it is also necessary to consider the case of rejection. In the former case, there will only be total acceptance because we are powerless to reject. However, in the latter case, when rejection occurs our humaness demands that we abandon the conquest after a certain point because it demands too much investment (or perahps our spitefulness/ego will make us continue the conquest because we cannot lose etc). But Godliness on the other hand which is implicit of infinite love and patience will continue to wait until there is total acceptance is acheived not by force but by a gradual understanding derived from the individual.
So, in conclusion, yes we are "God like" in the fact that we are given the inner power to acheive almost anything that we desire btu the fundamental question is how we use this power against other people that is key in determining our so called "Godliness".
(or do i misinterpret what you are driving at?)
Post a Comment