Pandora’s Box

When “rescue” and “unloved” meet and it really crashes, the dangerous situation arises: “Pandora’s box”. The unloved being scares the lover, so that he pays attention to what he says/communicates. Saying the wrong thing heats up “rescue” in his compulsive search for the right words/texts and the sense of danger makes him disregard boundaries and dignity. The beloved subject, carries (here in the cliché of a beautiful woman in need of protection — Pandora) an effective destructive potential with her, which only gets its meaning when the lover (“rescue”) suspects/realizes it in his dream image (see also: These are the very own inner worlds of the unloved subject, which the lover does not know and cannot comprehend. The unloved subject is an unmistakable sensor for false/egoistic motives that damage dignity and the box thus always opens reasonably. The opening of the box is therefore actually a “revelation”. Concealed in the box is hope, more generally speaking: “faith”, which in the world of “unloved” (which has now erupted) is a mockery (of the lover) and amounts to an insult. It is thus a challenge and a smashing of the desire to “rescue”, because the “faith”, the hope in it is closed by the unknown and the traumatizing vision of the truths about the world, which become halfway, nebulous, visible; that is: by feeling into the inner vision of the loved subject, it reveals itself to the lover as truthful and thus as real experience / authentically visible. The lover follows the threads of logic in what he sees and his own hope and “rescue” suddenly appears to him like an insult to the unloved being in the face of the world whose interlocked connections he now perceives as still naive and unnecessary but increasingly knowing. Faith and rescue are recognized by the lover as potentially hurtful, because they are an insult to the unloved subject that once believed and wanted to rescue herself and invested much more effort. The only thing that is stable here is what is true about the lover (that is the higher part of loving, like his “trembling” in feeling and realizing the Eros connection, which he as a man cannot build up the way women can (I know, this is a cliché – not politically correct today). The Logos is familiar to him, the Hero is also familiar to him (will to power), but Eros as the intimate contact of two people in exchange with each other has never experienced the necessary formation of the heart from him.

If the lover consciously and for selfish motives approaches the beloved in this way, he considers her as an object and not as a subject and plans with this dangerous situation what is to be considered as malicious. In contrast to this, the lover is often dissonant or overwhelmed by the imminent danger and acts thoughtlessly while staggering between selfish and platonic motives.

The lover as “Epimetheus” (the one who consideres after his actions)

The contents of the box are truths and bitter knowledge about the laws of life and the universe which the (here: naive, foolish, changeable) lover knew something about, but he didn’t care (to put it bluntly) because it didn’t affect him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *