The love story is all too often pathologized as madness (a painful, pathological crisis). In public opinion, the excessive force is devalued. The generally accepted credo is: the love story is the toll that the lover has to pay to the world in order to be reconciled with it. The discourse; the soliloquy which here on this page highlights inner states of the soul, on the other hand, wants to suggest the intrinsic self-value which emerges in the experience of these states and in the activity of “remaining in suffering”, but at the same time being ashamed of the deeper anchoring. This deeper anchoring is: the reason lies in the desire to be able to hold a thread upright, and this already for too long, so that the thread that once was innocent, dear and naive now seems grotesque just because of the long time of holding on.
On this page we are talking about two different people. The author (me) as loving subject, in many places also called “rescue” and “change” and the beloved subject, in many places also called “unloved” and “dignity”. It is probably the case that these two people are basically attracted to each other, but differ fundamentally from each other and also repel each other. There was a time of mutual contact and joint discussions, then a longer period of loss of contact, a reunion and then a final separation.
The loving subject is thrown into the worlds of emotions and mind. To be thrown in is considered under the aspect of passing time. In the world of emotions, the subject reveals itself from within itself, bringing forth and discovering what is already contained in it. These emotions resemble expansive forces that come from within the soul. In the world of the mind, the subject looks at what has been brought forth in this way in order to bring it into a meaningful context in relation to his or her own world. The beloved subject takes meaningful syntax from the uncovered world of emotional potential that the lover reveals and prescribes the meaningful syntax of this individual relationship in the context of its usefulness for a positive world. It was too little of this meaningful syntax (the meaningful thread) and too much of this blind emotion (change of subject, change, unreliability) for the beloved subject, to whom the mind and syntax means more than the blind unveiling of potential.
The meeting of these two worlds is animated by the consciousness of the subjects. Their individual existences have reasons to come together for a final meeting and they let each other be free and undone from the mutual mischief. While this has already happened in reality, the author here still walks those paths of fantasy that are nourished by his desire to be able to realize the world of the beloved subject in himself. In particular, it is discussed here, in which way he was impressed and enchanted by the demonstration of the mind and individual character and he wants to do justice to the values and virtues (dignity) in it. He only wants to let them resurrect in himself if he has truly understood them and has prescribed them as meaningful in himself and can thus fill them with his own life. He thus only accepts for himself what he can understand from the beloved subject and to which he is again exposed in confrontation through the time of self-chosen solitude.
Guided by this goal, he nevertheless experiences himself on an odyssey, in which he sees himself as driven. Driven by the tension of the encounter that is reflected in his soul and creates two different worlds within himself. He must be able to experience the world of the beloved subject emotionally in order to really understand it. This cannot be done by logic alone. He wants to be able to evaluate the situations of rejection from the point of view of the beloved subject, in order to be able to keep the value of conversations made in the past exchange right (in/through this struggle of ego). In view of the truthfulness of the loss of contact, the author realizes again and again that this tension becomes a void when he realizes that the Beloved Subject would envy or despise him for his tension. He is not immune to the desire to be able to grasp the meaning in a final way with a selfish fantasy of omnipotence in the runes of meaning (the words and sentences). Again and again he finds his way back to the quite contrary desire to protect the heart and the healing from this destructive undertaking; which mocks the beloved subject and gets caught in lies again and again, only to stagger steps forward towards a realization of the unconsciously working.
He warms himself within those highlights, that bring him closer to themes that are fundamentally behind the context or seem older and more ancient than the conflict. The point here is to protect the individuality of the being against the assessment by a template. That is why to acquit the individual in the face of constraining self-condemnations, and also for the egoistic desires to prove something to a beloved subject; to reject the egoistic desires in turn, so as not to fall victim to the guilt, which one charges oneself in illusions/phantasmagorias (always to reject too late, only awakened by the conscience after the deed has already been done). The warnings say that one must not sin against another man or oneself (of his dignity), in order not to fall prey to one’s own worthlessness (emptiness): for one is a man with a conscience, who will be grieved to do harm to himself or to the other.
Is it better to find few words and thereby lie, or to build up too many words like a protective wall in front of you and thereby at least show that you need one and thereby honestly show that you have to defend yourself. To defend oneself against brooding over the exits from a self-built prison, which is able to enable one to free oneself from the limited state of consciousness in which one finds oneself. How is it possible that a prison of reflection on past lies, insincerity, or loss of self (loss of dignity) can help one leave a limited state of consciousness (another kind of prison)?
I will talk about such philosophical thought processes, clear syntax (mind) as well as esoteric (ambiguous) mysteries. I would like to present here forces that seem to be incompatible in themselves and I would like to leave their individual peculiarity and incompatibility to them. In the clearest possible and most faithful transcripts, as profound as my temporal constitution allows me to do so, I would like to explore what stirs up a person’s heart and keeps it busy for a long time.