How (not) to take a decision

For example you decide to quit smoking. In my case it was because my throat was hurting every morning when I woke up. I had made up my mind, I had no doubt it was the thing to do, but still, I was not so worried about my throat every minute of the day, and suddenly there were exceptions, there were good reasons to forget the resolution and light the cigarette. The problem was not the big decision about quiting, which was obviously right, but the small decisions which had to be faced one after the other, all the time.

Sometimes it is opposite, when you decide you are going start up something difficult which is going to take a long time, and you are quite sure you want to do it. For example, when I decided I would write a novel. I was not sure about the script, nor about myself as a writer, nor about the point of it. It was not easy to think I was getting anywhere, but it was really easy to sit down every day and write. (It was hard to sit down for many hours, anyhow it was a much simpler problem than figuring out if it was worth it.)

So, there is that inner thing which apparently knows always what to do, although it is not always right. It was wrong about the smoking, and it was only when I convinced it, whatever it inner thing is or could be, that I did quite. It was nice about the writing, had good intentions, but I still don't know whether it is right or wrong or just wishful.

That's how (not) to take a decision: you listen to it.


Sorry I write so little lately... I should be listening. I think I am. I'll ask.

nadaism for real

The big problem can be explained in a quite simple way, no need to be a phylosopher: there's the man in nature who gets born and feels hungry and goes to the bathroom, and there's the human being who is conscious of his/her existance and reads essays and builds white porcelain toilets. That's the contradiction; the man subject to nature, versus the intellectual, the one seeking for a place and for a meaning.

I agree (this is the answer I owed you for such a long time): devotion, redemption and liberation are essentially the same concept, since each of them is just the promise that everything makes sense. My intelligence feels confortable if I target a far-away-objective and I decide I'll make everything possibe to reach it; however I'll necessarily go slowly, such a long path to follow, and in the meantime I while try to ensure I'm happy, that I'm enjoying myself while my rational desires get distracted.

Does it worth it? The answer does not depend, obviously on the fact you reach anywhere or not.


That's actually the point of nadaism: doing nothing while getting your mind distracted. There's a guy who made more than 20 thousand euros in a month from donations, he was in front of a webcam in his room doing nothing. People paid for watching him laying on his bed. I was so amazed when hearing from him. That's nadaism for real.

Apologies

I have not written for two months, and I sincerely apologize. For somebody who enjoys writting it is so rewarding to have a few readers, even if it is just two or three people who enjoy the reading and check out the blog regularly. I feels so nice. Thank you.

These couple of months I have not written at all, hardly emails to friends. I've been working a lot, had so little free time that I've spent it in an amazing adventure (I'm so much in love, so happy).

There's a few answers that I owe you; I will find the time to think about them. This one is just to tell you I'm still here, that the blog is up and running, and that I really appreciate.

2nd language: Devotion

How to talk about devotion not referring to anything religious?

Some people (e.g. yoga teachers) use the word "surrender" instead. Surrender to the self, they advice; however, what do they mean by the self, exactly? Some of them would say, if you asked them: just surrender to your breath, to the expiration. Sounds like a very simple way to put it, but still; what is it you surrender to?

(Probably one stops trying to explain it with words only when one has understood it -not the case for me.)

Anyway, talking about human nature, Fromm explains one should not be neither completely rational nor driven by emotions; one's centre is somewhere in the middle, i.e. the middle point between rationality and emotions -and that's the self.

(By the way, some might say in the middle, some others would rather say "beyond".)


Using this definition of the self, surrender looks like a easier concept (well, supposing it is what they mean, and it makes sense at all). And the point of surrender would be: recognizing the "self" itself, the inner power of it, the calm, the "I know where I am and where I'm heading to". That is, being sure of something. Is that "devotion"?.

Looks ok to me, since I have not understood, and unfortunately I haven't found any comforting definition by any reliable author.


(Thanks for your reading. Last month has been really intense and good for my personal life, and I haven't written so much, sorry for that. More coming soon.)