Two questions: Towards what would I lean between the ideological intention and practical outcome? Towards what should I lean between proving of me being right and proving of others being wrong?
I’m in a situation of an environmental change where I sit myself down to recall some flashback memories where I stepped too much on others’ affairs, or where I stretch myself high dreaming what my future to be the next coming years. I was walking the big garden of Versailles Palace today, crossing the gran canal where some youngsters were kayaking under the bright sun. I arrived to Le Domaine de Marie-Antoinette, awing of the colours of marble decoration (which was pink instead of white, so I assumed the Marie-Antoinette’s taste).
I sat between two pillars that I observed, thinking that I’m metaphorically sitting on the very middle ground between the two pillars: I’m finalising my master degree and soon hopely from January, I would need to be in a working environment to start the settle-down (whichever meaning it contains). Just yesterday I applied a year contract to a consultancy position, on which my ideological intention is laid. The job description is what I dream for, but it would mean another year of instability and moving around the world, whereas many call me for to seek a stability to start a settle-down for further practical aspects of life.
And also, having argued with my brother for small and minor disagreements, I realised that proving of me being right is almost synonym of proving of others being wrong, and vice verse. Why there couldn’t be a middle ground that proving of me being right also can lead the other to be right at the same time? Sadly but almost automatically me trying to prove the legitimacy of how I have lived sometimes disapproves others’ life styles. At the same time, thinking that everyone might need to prove themselves as a human nature for his or her validation, would it be inevitable that one confronts with others in this sense of proving oneself and disproving the others?
I’m no Saint or Buddha yet, for I cannot just look through my own sudden thoughts and emotions when they arise from nowhere. Those thoughts and emotions exist because I’m resting between those two different pillars that conflict each other. Take one side as a permanent backup force wouldn’t be a solution, for one cannot live up to, for example, only proving that counterpart is right contradicting himself and only pursuing ideological intention before practical outcomes. Wait, do many believe this character as a Saint or Buddha’s requirement? Maybe yes, but maybe there comes the fundamental misunderstanding how a Saint of Buddha figure should represent on our own societies. Maybe they are not the ones who reside on humanitarian pillar (whether it is about disproving oneself to prove the other, or living up to ideological purposes blinding unstable realities): simply they are the ones who don’t need such gravitating pillars.
Day by day, I hope I can rest in better place away from those two conflicting pillars.