or when a decision had been made that something was outside the reach of understanding -
(by whom - you mean this epistemologically, not sociologically: a neutral decision: this is beyond what we can understand, this is not meant in the sense that arbirtrarily something is assigned as crazy and therefore off limits. it still possibly could be understood, but the results of this understanding would perhaps not be allowed into the social realm -
and what when this was not anymore a matter of a decision, something just plainly was out of reach of the understanding)
things that are outside the reach of understanding...
intrinsically:
if something cannot be understood, how can it be best approached. how can it be gotten to know?
and what that would mean for the limits of understanding: how far can the ununderstandeable thing be followed and what happens when it cannot be followed anymore (for example: someone sees pink things).
and what if the ununderstandable thing sits inside a person, has its own life inside a person? and outside a person, actions -
and then the next question could be: is it dangerous. and if not can the person left be, and what would that mean for the person in itself and everyone in the proximity of that person. how much space can be given, emotional, psychological, financial space for these thinge to run their course? how can these things be helped, aided. what would be beneficial?
temporarily:
when you were a lot younger, someone told you one needs to learn to suffer. and initially you wondered if that meant, if that had a sort of punitive undertone, to suffer as a necessary part of life, but what it actually meant was to learn to emotionally deal with difficulty in life, or with suffering. to be able to bear ones suffering so to speak, to learn suffering, to master it, maybe, as if, and to come out on the so called other side.
and you had often thought that this made some sense, when you, retrospectively, think back about times you had suffered or when you had been in what you could call plain old despair (and you intentionally do not want to use mental health terminology), that is a form of suffering, and what would that mean, despair, de sperare, without hope, ok, so, a state without hope. which still might not necessarily imply suffering, it just means being without hope. is this bad, to be without hope, you would think not necessarily. but if being without hope implies suffering then hope is essential to, well, what one could call the life of a content person. content. hope in relation to what, why is it necessary. or, if a life can imagined that is without hope and without suffering, what would it look like?
to hope, to want something to happen, with the expectation that it might & to place confidence, to trust with confident expectation of good.
so hope being the possibility of good things happening.
can one live a life in which nothing happens, or no good things happen? that still does not imply that bad things are happening.
have you now shown that despair doesn't necessarily mean suffering? does the absence of goodness mean suffering?
but you had not set out writing this in order to prove that despair is not necessarily bad [and why do you want despair not necessarily being bad, good question, because you want that desperate times are less painful, you want despair to be painless, is it that, an avoidance of suffering - or really rather in truth an impossibility to bear (the memory of) the full weight of despair in its deepest consequence - and that being a good thing, the impossibility to face or remember exactly that level of emotional pain would hopefully mean an absence of despair - or a rejection of a desperate life], you had just used this word despair as because it seemed appropriate to how you felt at a certain point in your life in order to explain said statement about learning how to suffer -
or: being in despair as the height of a state of ununderstood utmost emotional overwhelm - and learning to suffer meaning 1. bear the state of despair 2. to understand it (if possible), your emotional reaction, or range of emotional reactions, to whatever you felt caused them. that these things need time, to understand, one needs to learn one's suffering, analyse it, why did one react to event x in the way y. how did that come about. can it be made better, if so, how. if not, how can it be lived with. how much time and space would be needed. can this be lived alongside ordinary daily life or would it be all consuming, would the suffering be everything. can you stop yourself from inflicting your own personal problems on others. maybe. probably not. how much strength does one have for awareness, or, self-awareness. or strength to apply one's analytical apparatus to one's soul and would that be at all times a good thing, maybe, sometimes not; the strength to understand oneself, at all times, and especially in situations like these.... and then to act accordingly. it seems a lot. and yet it seems necessary.... and also impossible...
in recent years you felt a lot more humble about these things,
you feel a lot of problems are too big, they cannot be solved or not by one person alone.
politicosocial influences take a lot of securities away which are a basic psychological need and if people cannot meet these needs anymore then -
you just feel you can only do your best which very often does not touch the sides and very often, you feel, you do not have enough strength to even do your best. which means a slow, gentle and life affirming acceptance of one's or other's fallibility and the reality thereof and to meet that with all the intellectual and psychological generosity one can summon .....