Pathwalker
02-04-2007, 12:34 PM
Good day all, i hope all is well in your lives! http://www.walkthepath.net/forum/images/smiles/PDT_015.gif
What i am about to discuss will surely be met with opposition as it is a most controversial notion, however i do ask that you keep an open mind when you read this post and i will in turn extend to you the same respect when reading your replies!
So as you may have already gathered, this topic is that of shallowness. Specifically i will be challenging the notion of what we take for granted to be 'shallow' and what is not. As this post is written from my perspective, i feel it is important that you understand the underlying assumption behind this theory; the duality of 'inside' and 'outside' and all duality is the same at it's source, inside and outside merge and give way to unconditional love. This isn't an easy concept to come to grips with, particularly if one is to approach it from a purely intellectual perspective however if one is able to accept this assumption, then the end result becomes logically possible.
I was brought up to believe that it is most shallow to be attracted to someone strictly because of their looks and that it was deep and noble to look past someone's appearance and be attracted to them for what's inside of them. When did it become customary to say one is more important than another, we say, "don't judge a book by it's cover" and yet we automatically judge someone's personality or intellectual depth as something to be revered and looks as something that we shouldn't enjoy as we would then be shallow. There is the possible rebuttal of this observation is that looks are fleeting whereas what a person is on the inside isn't, this isn't true in the slightest. People age both on the inside and the outside, it's a fact of life, fair enough a person will not remain physically youthful forever but as they age, can they not still be beautiful on the outside?
It's almost like we as a progressive society constantly follow the swing of the pendulum, for a period of time we adore the beautiful people and shun the ugly but intelligent, then the pendulum swings back and it's reversed - when are we going to learn to stop following the extremes and realise that both are equally shallow? Where did it all begin anyway, when did it become established that a good-looking/unintelligent person was less important than a plain/intelligent person. I believe we should appreciate all of our experience, whether they be beautiful, repulsive, intelligent or stupid not segregate ourselves from one another by judging one as better than the other.
Happy pondering!
Pathwalker
What i am about to discuss will surely be met with opposition as it is a most controversial notion, however i do ask that you keep an open mind when you read this post and i will in turn extend to you the same respect when reading your replies!
So as you may have already gathered, this topic is that of shallowness. Specifically i will be challenging the notion of what we take for granted to be 'shallow' and what is not. As this post is written from my perspective, i feel it is important that you understand the underlying assumption behind this theory; the duality of 'inside' and 'outside' and all duality is the same at it's source, inside and outside merge and give way to unconditional love. This isn't an easy concept to come to grips with, particularly if one is to approach it from a purely intellectual perspective however if one is able to accept this assumption, then the end result becomes logically possible.
I was brought up to believe that it is most shallow to be attracted to someone strictly because of their looks and that it was deep and noble to look past someone's appearance and be attracted to them for what's inside of them. When did it become customary to say one is more important than another, we say, "don't judge a book by it's cover" and yet we automatically judge someone's personality or intellectual depth as something to be revered and looks as something that we shouldn't enjoy as we would then be shallow. There is the possible rebuttal of this observation is that looks are fleeting whereas what a person is on the inside isn't, this isn't true in the slightest. People age both on the inside and the outside, it's a fact of life, fair enough a person will not remain physically youthful forever but as they age, can they not still be beautiful on the outside?
It's almost like we as a progressive society constantly follow the swing of the pendulum, for a period of time we adore the beautiful people and shun the ugly but intelligent, then the pendulum swings back and it's reversed - when are we going to learn to stop following the extremes and realise that both are equally shallow? Where did it all begin anyway, when did it become established that a good-looking/unintelligent person was less important than a plain/intelligent person. I believe we should appreciate all of our experience, whether they be beautiful, repulsive, intelligent or stupid not segregate ourselves from one another by judging one as better than the other.
Happy pondering!
Pathwalker