Does the human make ‘seemingly’ accidental blunders in order to become affected by them, so to promote and agree upon a higher learning? To make a blunder unconsciously, in order to become affected consciously I think is for those introspective people whom hold self-inquiry so dear, and above all other learning. Such people never take anyone as seriously as they take themselves. So, does this kind of person do these kinds of things on purpose—do they let slip for a burning catalyst toward improvement? Absolutely.
This is what I’d call learning through experience. We can only ever experience ourselves and even experience others, through ourselves. Hence this type of learning is and must be, self-directive. Intimately, only we know our secret privies, attachments and disapointments in life, though the nature of that introspection may not always be kind, with time, does usher one along to Knowledge and emancipation from the old dreary deed, or sets of, or from what was just plain unfortunate. We are continuously faced with a decision in this regard, and however hard it is to accept initially, the overcoming is great as you take yourself forward. Very few do not take this route of, well let’s call it what it is, Love. It’s irrestible and the accepting of one’s own self as being foolish is too beautiful to describe, and it’s happening on so many levels, everywhere.
I propse there are two types of living by learning: this actual kind, self-inquirying, innately progressing; and a theoretical kind, which makes a mere shadow of life in comparison. The theoretical is attempting to live and learn by something outside of you, and I have come to know this through a real-life example. I’m studying to be a teacher, and generally, my teaching preparation seeks to even, dare I say, ignore the self, and favour theory.
In studying teaching, we love theory, worship it nearly; however I prefer experience. And you could say, theory is developed after experience, yes; but it is not our experience, and how do we know if it has not been manipulated, and how can we trust it if it has not come from us? In a sense, depriving the greatness of experiencing for ourselves, by ourselves. And upon observation, when I look around the room, it feels like deep down we know it, and upon reflection with myself, I definitely know it.
Theory is not entirely bad, however, for it offers reflection upon itself; it leads one to introspection and opinion; yet, going back to my position of academia, when we are not graded or even allowed to have an opinion, that’s when I bite my nails and churn over its worth. Theory without reflection is ephemeral, for reflection on theory gives it substance and even its own occurance. It is the actual that responds, yet the theoretical in itself does not, unless our attention is funnelled into it. We are in charge of the actual, only nowadays you can only so hope. For this reliance on theory is positioning us farther and farther away from managing our own actualness, almost to the point of our immediate agreeing, and if we don’t have some kind of reference point as which seems now is a necessity to equate a meaning, what is our meaning? By associating with that which is not our own, then do we trade it, give ourselves and our meaning away? Are we afraid of who we are, or just lazy?
Our meaning, without any interference from the esteemed, unmet other, would be a pure, undiluted breath of relief — and your breath, at that. For the audience, at beck and call of the self-realized or self-realizing, would not have to adjust to something outside of you, but only experience that which is you. Shamanism comes to mind; shamans are channellers of things which are beyond normal planes, yet which are all present within us, for how else would we know of them? Because our selves, being capable of housing everything, are capable of also housing the divine, that same divine which intervenes at every moment in its carefully suited shades, each to our own capacities; is there truly any better teacher? Yet how can it luminate if we cling to constructs, mere templates which in no way present themselves to metaphysics?
This theory type excuses itself of life being very real and useful and joyful, and I sometimes feel, that yes, in the actual, the limits of what we perceive as fair are pushed to extremes, but that fairness is only seeking new territory, to make us a better understanding human being. To come to know ourselves better is the agreement. It’s a kind of deal, but the limits of our own relationship we have with ourselves ultimately seek a larger moral ground, otherwise fairness would be out of the equation, for we are all equal and deserving. Given that, the subject is always the outcome to best suit humanity at large.