BurnedOut
Your friendly neighborhood asshole
Here, by moving on, I mean that simply moving on without the requisite emotional acceptance required. Accepting on the other hand is beyond moving on and, here it implies a legitimate process wherein the person peruses her actions and emotionally process the entire thing.
However, I am not going to delve any further into that because it will simply stating the obvious knowledge.
There are two things that are considered in the mainstream to bog a person down by binding her to a particular object or a person or an incident: Love and hatred and all the variants of its kind.
However, it is unusual to also note that the solution touted is to simply 'stop' loving or hating and I find that implausible in reality because one cannot solve a problem by eliminating it. It is a logical fallacy.
I believe that we should take a look at the object relations theory and try to understand that attachments form out of perceived causality and the subsequent heuristic of familiarity it entrenches in the mind. In other words, disliking something also requires a relationship, albeit an unhealthy and opposing one but as long as it warrants some kind of uni or bidirectional perception, it will always cause her to hold the object as 'familiar' no matter what.
This ends up reinforcing the memory over and over again and despite the old adage of memory being fickle to the march of time keeps failing because she remembers the exact details for years and years.
Therefore, in relation to this, moving on is simply maintaining cognitive distance that does not quite have a relationship with emotional distancing. In other words, you can outrun time if you don't voluntarily decay memories. Therefore, time does not necessarily lead to maturity or acceptance.
Some of my personal experiences have caused to discover that even grief is a form of potent attachment. I say grief and not guilt or sadness because grief involves a feeling of unilateral loss that is felt in the absence of an object. It does not necessarily include guilt or shame and it is not sadness either because it is a feeling of longing. Thankfully grief is a good thing because it can help in facilitating change.
I have not seen much consensus anywhere about the importance of grief and how frequently it is felt by people. Many of us are baffled when sadness continues without guilt or shame after 'moving on'.
We try to always work on personalized emotions such as anxiety, sadness, anger but we don't usually work on holistic emotions such as grief and that lends a poor situational awareness.
Grief is special because it can be quite objective by nature by its virtue of being firmly dependent on extant circumstances than ones that exist in memory. In simple words, you cannot repeatedly grieve over an incident that is already resolved. But we should not forget that any unresolved matter also calls for grief. After the resolution, grief goes away and there is a feeling of liberation from the object but also residual sadness caused by the emotional acknowledgement of its perduring departure
However, I am not going to delve any further into that because it will simply stating the obvious knowledge.
There are two things that are considered in the mainstream to bog a person down by binding her to a particular object or a person or an incident: Love and hatred and all the variants of its kind.
However, it is unusual to also note that the solution touted is to simply 'stop' loving or hating and I find that implausible in reality because one cannot solve a problem by eliminating it. It is a logical fallacy.
I believe that we should take a look at the object relations theory and try to understand that attachments form out of perceived causality and the subsequent heuristic of familiarity it entrenches in the mind. In other words, disliking something also requires a relationship, albeit an unhealthy and opposing one but as long as it warrants some kind of uni or bidirectional perception, it will always cause her to hold the object as 'familiar' no matter what.
This ends up reinforcing the memory over and over again and despite the old adage of memory being fickle to the march of time keeps failing because she remembers the exact details for years and years.
Therefore, in relation to this, moving on is simply maintaining cognitive distance that does not quite have a relationship with emotional distancing. In other words, you can outrun time if you don't voluntarily decay memories. Therefore, time does not necessarily lead to maturity or acceptance.
Some of my personal experiences have caused to discover that even grief is a form of potent attachment. I say grief and not guilt or sadness because grief involves a feeling of unilateral loss that is felt in the absence of an object. It does not necessarily include guilt or shame and it is not sadness either because it is a feeling of longing. Thankfully grief is a good thing because it can help in facilitating change.
I have not seen much consensus anywhere about the importance of grief and how frequently it is felt by people. Many of us are baffled when sadness continues without guilt or shame after 'moving on'.
We try to always work on personalized emotions such as anxiety, sadness, anger but we don't usually work on holistic emotions such as grief and that lends a poor situational awareness.
Grief is special because it can be quite objective by nature by its virtue of being firmly dependent on extant circumstances than ones that exist in memory. In simple words, you cannot repeatedly grieve over an incident that is already resolved. But we should not forget that any unresolved matter also calls for grief. After the resolution, grief goes away and there is a feeling of liberation from the object but also residual sadness caused by the emotional acknowledgement of its perduring departure
