Silence

Is silence reasonable?

Can our reason know when it is useful or necessary to break away with the most valuable thing that exists?

Are we “reasonable” people?

In essence, our “rationality” is a result of our desires.

There are “verifiable” “facts” that we can all detect and that do not seem to depend on our interpretation.

We can establish a more or less “absolute” “standard” of comparison and “measurement.” Like the laws of physics.

Or the functioning of biological bodies – to a certain extent where we do not take into account the so-called “psyche”.

But there are also phenomena that tell us about facts, but they do not have a standard with which to compare them and they can be “denied” or treated as “non-existent” for our sensations – or opinions, or desires…:

A people exists for three thousand years defined by a book, a concept and an identity.

Or something else… but it exists in a defined way and there are people who are – or will be, depending on the circumstances – identified as such – practically since the beginning of civilisation as we know it.

This can be considered – in practice – as a fact that branches out into traditions, interpretations, even denial and assimilation within other identities. Either denial or general interpretation of the book and the customs and even the words and concepts as a series of “ancient” and “obsolete” legends and atavisms…

But it is a “historical fact” that most likely those interpretations and opinions and that “disdain” will change or “disappear”… before the existence of that people, that identity, that idea or that book… or whatever it is that has endured for 3000 years.

There is a moment in time when the hands that write this are already “dust”, but most likely the Book and the idea will continue to provoke thoughts and actions of all kinds.

Regardless of whether each of our actions is used to “deny.”

…that is, when our desires are against something “existing”, they ignore all the evidence that they otherwise “accept”, without “any problem”.

But it does not mean that what we deny “disappears.”

On the contrary…somehow it is preserved and it receives more and more attention and all the other desires place it “under the spotlight” – even if it is to deny that it exists… call it “the invader”, the “ideological entity”… as if denying to give it its name if it does not fulfil the function that its name implies in practice.

It is simply normal and inevitable that we ask ourselves at some point:

  What desire does that identity represent?

  And why does it seem to be contrary to everything we long for?

-And at the same time we assign and see in it all the “harmful” ways of using our desires.

It’s actually not that “difficult” to come to a conclusion about this. The “difficult” thing – or “impossible” – seems to be accepting it. Or put another way, to resemble your true desires to this unique desire among all. It is even more difficult for those who are its “carriers.”

We know that in practice our actions and thoughts are determined by what we want. In our development, our desires grow in quantity and “quality,” ranging from “conforming” with the most basic to yearning for status and wealth and power or recognition and control over others.

And the “measurement” is the comparison with the satisfaction that we “see” in others. A person is within an environment that values above all status or promotion in class or “category”, then the environment will be like an “engine” for his thoughts and movements and normally he will not rest until he has a certain “status” equal or for above those around him. If not, he will seek another environment or seek to “destroy” the environment in which he is or was, if not, he will seek to destroy “himself” with substances to “feel good” or as a last resort, “disappear” – There is no “escape” for this program within each and every person: if when comparing myself with what surrounds me I do not find a “measure” in which I am “above”, at least in something, then I need to deny that exists- or “hate”. If I am used to feeling “better” than someone at something and that comforts me and suddenly that changes, then I feel “betrayed” and I direct my batteries towards someone who “was” “worse” than me at something – fleeing from the feeling that in fact, the only thing that “betrayed” me was my cravings, because it is something that you cannot really go against or disappear, you would need to ask for “Help” and worse, ask for it from someone you consider “inferior” and “non-existent”.

This does not mean that the “usual – or favourite” hated one – is “better” or “worse”, but rather that it represents the goal, or the final state towards which all our comparisons are directed:

To begin with, comparison forces us to connect at least superficially and externally with the desires of others, and this mechanism with all its variants, creates, in the end, something that lasts: associations.

The “kings” of all kinds expand their territory through murder and intrigue or whatever to exalt themselves and feel power and importance by comparing themselves to others. But then the kings disappear and what lasts are the “kingdoms” or the associations that connect the desires of more and more people until they cover the entire globe.

Like when a child is offered some “sweets” as a reward, but the real reward is the process of obtaining it and what he will learn in that process.

It is obvious that what directs this process will gradually stop using “sweets” and will let go of the hand that is directing. Gradually so that we take charge of the process directly and without “excuses”.

Furthermore, contact and comparisons between people around the globe “force” people to “understand” or “identify,” or go ever “deeper” into longings that are not “theirs” – simply to survive and “feeling worthy” in an increasingly interconnected and interdependent world.

It is not difficult to conclude that the desire most “hated” and denied even by its “carriers” has to do with forming increasingly “deeper” associations and with developing the capacity to “endure” adverse comparisons for my “I” in order to create associations and desires that are increasingly final and that will last “forever.”

Which does not mean “indignity.” This concept in its true meaning means a sensation that is shared by “everyone” without exception. If not, it is just a “childish” game that can last at most a few “decades” of “life” and will disappear or be “silenced” without leaving a trace.