The true lament
Observations, dependant entirely on the premeditated nature of its implement, render a damning response to the human condition. The seemingly inherent impulse, deeply embedded into the conscience of all man, to self-ratify ones existence through primordial observations of our surroundings, certainly through aesthetic interactions with our fellow man, is frightfully recessive in design. Bound to these awful antiphons, we unequivocally entice the very emotive qualities we endeavour to cull – the notion of insecurity. Reflective surfaces, whether intended in the design to present the true consideration of image, becomes functional, for at least a split second, to reaffirm our physical substance. Reaffirmation, if you pardon the blasé approach to rendering the same argument redundant, arguably retracts from the purpose of the hypothesis. Indeed its synonym, incongruity, is more suitable. Our preconceptions, when disseminating our aesthetic conceptions, arguably are ravaged by the predisposed sensitivity that we are undeserving of response. The approval is short lived, thus providing one with confirmation of the answers we sought to establish, truth.
A paradox exists with the constraints of human condition. The greater time spent honing our image to an agreeable disposition, the more one suffers from the subsequent qualities we intended to enrich. Beauty, contextually restricted by self-perpetuating social instruments, becomes a cancerous affair. The institutionalisation of beauty, dominating culture so sickeningly, has become an autonomous device which intrudes on mankind’s global consciousness; its true purpose becomes emaciated, intoxicated by truly revolting manifestations that destabilise a fragile integrity so desperately in need of thorough reconstitution.
Experience, though inhibited by personal intellect, ratifies, to a degree, this perspective. Multitudinous in number, the volume of individuals who constantly become emotionally indebted to the manifestation of beauty, escalates exponentially. If there had ever been an idea, who’s transition from the hypothetical to pragmatic realm, to which its arrival has convoluted man’s thinking so maliciously, then one needs not to look much further. This etymological process has been observed upon, and argued upon, fervently. So common place are the piecemeal theories, it seems pointless to remark upon them, in lieu of subjecting the reader to a critique of one’s own cerebral faculties. Nevertheless, this very notion, that man has spent a significant period of time lending thought to the matter, is indicative of its poignancy.
Riddled with flaws, man seeks to justify itself onto itself. Comparison, a dangerous emotive reflex, provokes responses more aligned to the intuitive, primordial response mechanisms than the analytical faculties of the mind. Comparison can fashion competition, to which some respond admirably by giving in to its subservient nature, evolving into what they consider a more ‘complete’ being. Admirable it may seem, we witness the cruel nature of irony. Evolution, founded upon the function of comparison, regarding partnerships, can damage. A partner who makes another feel insecure about a particular faculty, who then works hard to rectify this perceived weakness to a degree of interpersonal satisfaction, can then render the situation when the partner, who made the original comparison, become threatened by the evolution, and reacts unfavourably. It should be worth commenting that these individuals are akin to the lowest echelons of our species in every possible manner.
Nonetheless, more often than not, people collapse – and a self-deprecating conciseness prevails, arising from the embers of diffidence with more resolve, hell-bent on dismantling the fragile mind of its owner. Comparison has the ability to truly destroy the confidence of an individual, to which this cyclical procedure endeavours to devour its prey, its master, in a self-perpetuating whirlpool of dejection and guilt. To allude this monstrous concoction, one needs only to not immerse themselves to begin with, to remain resilient and head-strong. With regards to those god-awful individuals who encourage the participation into this sordid enterprise, it would be best to ignore them and to remember their faces, to remind oneself never to associate with them again and expel them from your mind. Our species has the capacity to overlook those faculties of our partner that are, or at least were, their attractive qualities in the first instance. Arguably these deteriorate as result of familiarity, and man has the ability to lose perspective when exposed to familiarity for extended periods of time. More often than not the necessity to change the characteristics of partner becomes the prevalent theme in the development of these relationships. Once which was desirable, becomes quite the opposite. The ‘tainted minds’ who advocate this type of behaviour perpetuate this maliciousness which can scar partners and effect relationships more fruitful further down the line.
continuandum…
thehistoryphilosopher 