If we seek solitude to find ourselves, how is it that we can not become real in isolation? Or is it that solitude does not necessarily mean that we are isolated, only that we uncover parts of us that attach to outside sources? Then again, according to Stephen Cope, character can only truly be transformed through relationship and not through solitary practice. But Isolation constitutes quite literally the concept of being cut off from the outside world and those that inhabit it, rather than solitude though right? Which is really more of the idea of being connected within no matter where you are or who/what surrounds you. My question then becomes, when does solitude go too far into the form of isolation? Especially when there are those of us that prefer quiet calm to acces the divinity that is too difficult at times to "see" when we are consistently bombarded with the chaos of our surrounding environment. Does this not require some isolation in order to process what is real versus unreal? Perhaps taking the time to analyze is more of solitude rather than isolation because of the idea of moving further into the self rather than cutting the self off from outside perspective. Do we not find out more, learn more ,about ourselves and others when we drop down into this field of singularity? Im not saying that we hole ourselves up in our houses and never experience the outside world, only that being isolated at times serves purpose into rediscovery of self. So then my original question persists: how is it that we can not become real in isolation? Or is it that my question ahould be reworded into more of a facet of solitude?
Your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment