Tempestuous colloquies encumbered by an atmosphere of desire to seek consensus from all the participants that make it possible for such a gathering demand for an objective debate. It’s quite rare to find a person prioritizing his times of solitude above gatherings that prepares one to embark on a ride of eternal bliss. Every gathering has its moments and the participants make themselves a part of it either for the sake of it or because the mere thought that an alternative is available at their volition did not occur to them. The former ones are content with the occasional pride that they intend to take out of gatherings for invariably, they are the major contributors and this makes the investment that they make in such an inclusion debatable. Later ones are the deluders, they prefer to abstain from prioritizing their activities in the false pretenses of acting disingenuous. Doing this, they choose to alleviate themselves from the responsibility that is bestowed onto them for no one but they themselves are nominating their names for the charts of imbeciles. To accentuate this tumultuous situation, they let themselves even deeper into the quagmire of social acceptance by way of allowing no room for themselves, no solitude, no sense of appreciation for solitude and worse they develop an apprehension over the perfunctory results of it. Solitude that can build self esteem, solitude that can help delineate one’s individualism without room for a parallel is neglected.
Solitude is remarked as an act of reticence. But by whom? By those that have deemed to pronounce judgment on every countenance of others when it is neither asked for nor is preferred. Individuals with a sincere regard to solitude appreciate the reasoning behind it, they can not reason with those that don’t appreciate solitude and worse denounce it as an act of moral cowardice. To accuse a being solemnly of such an act is suggestive of a treachery to objective observations, more so by doing this they are only further embossing their labels of incompetence. Solitude demands for temperament, fortitude and above all perseverance. Individuals with these qualities are wise enough to discard these unreasonable but insuperable powers of observations of those around them. Trouble is with the naive aspirants of individualism for their armor of individuality would only embrace them in time to come. This inescapable time lag is surrounded by a systematic scrutiny of the individual's mental abilities, not by the way of putting them to good use, but by exercising restraint and by avoiding to play into their hands.
Solitude is a mark of fecundity, it invigorates in an individual, the power to assume indifference, it forms a base upon which much broader, unique and higher qualities can be built. Individuals who remain disconnected either with the power of solitude or with the people assuming this power are in a state of disrepair. They are completely subdued with false virtues, virtues for which they lend a helping hand in disguising into something more appropriate, in a sense speak worthy. They take credit for embracing sacrifice, one such false virtue which has but one premise - One has to sacrifice himself for the benefit of the whole - the absurdity in this premise is palpable enough to sicken one's pride insofar to leave no traces of its presence prior to that point in time. To seek virtuosity in such an act of sacrifice is to stoop so low that one would be left with no neck to stick out later. To sacrifice - as the definition suggests is to let one's virtues that one holds so dear to oneself go paltry. In this utter contemptible act of dishonesty, one is letting others needs and virtues take a precedence over that of his and he takes credit for this, what with the copious availability of gratitude seekers. The taker of the credit feels quasi-virtuosity for the givers of this credit are not worthy of seeking any. This act of sacrifice, gratitude or empathy which is anything but objective has gained ground that cannot be decimated by the advocates of objectivity. All those at the seeking end, have since the time of seeking denounced individuality for it's not economical for them. Who is the culprit ? I would say, it's the benefactor for he always took false pride in assuming the role of a benefactor, alleviating himself from the responsibility of protecting his virtues. He let them out for a debate and all the seekers threatened him of ostracize and the week mortal with no values relented to the systematic pestering.
Comments