Accepting things

Apparently I’m going to spend some more time addressing vague, confusing concepts. And this time it’s about acceptance.

Some speak of complete surrender to God, others about adapting to nature, and some others have extended that to adaptation to groups –particularly the one called society.

Acceptance can mean completely different things, and it’s incorrect to use a single word for all of them.

With optimum acceptance everything is alright, while with it’s opposite everything is chaotic; but also appears to be somewhat alright as that chaos is being disguised and suppressed. In between you have an interplay of things being -or not- alright. The higher you look the more alright things are. The lower you look the less alright things appear, untill you reach bottom floor where chaos is so overwhelming that it is being covered by some fake alright-ness. Those two ‘alright’s don’t feel the same. And one can tell the difference by experiencing both. A  characteristic of false ‘alright’ness is the limitation of potential, aka suppression. It is holding on to lies firmly, and not allowing anything else.

True acceptance means clear perception of truth, while it’s immitation means the hinderance of perception, so as to make things appear alright, as well as thorough agreement with lies.

Truth ultimately makes things alright (in complete Truth things are alright). Chaos is caused by lies, misunderstanding, irresponsibility.

Chaos would be more acceptable and accepting than some false acceptance, for it it would also point out more truth, but ultimately that chaos should also be handled too, for it is not the complete truth.

Example: Let’s says that A is being deceived by something. A thinks that B is his friend while B is not really his friend. B talks badly behind his back, and envies and tries to undermine him. So one day A finds that out and he rises from that false acceptance up to chaos, right? A might now feel uncomfortable about it, or even fight B and so on. Good. But still, that wouldn’t be the complete truth, for B’s betrayal is not the complete truth. First of all A has a share of responsibility for what he experiences from B. Secondarily, B must believe in some lies to get into betraying A. Ultimately, nothing divides A from B but lies, irresponsibility, misunderstanding. And all those can be resolved, as they don’t exist in truth. How? You’ll need to read through and really understand what I’ve talking about, that I’m going to talk about again…maybe 🙂

By writting here by the way, I always create some chaotic ripples, but hopefully those are less than the ones that get resolved. Otherwise, I’d say nothing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s