This principle is valid in all things, non literal ones too. It's on the writer to refrain from doing multiple meanings on the same aspect. That should, and in my case, will be ignored, even if the meaning is clear. Or not, especially if it's the opposite of the literal meaning. Non literal aspects that may be included, can be taken into account. One should always read things literately first. Radical acceptance therefore is not only morally but intellectually bankrupt and figuratively should be discarded into the dust bin of history.Ĭlick to expand.I think if one is in the literal sphere. This satisfaction is the result of our inner twisting's being undone-and therefore our boundaries' being maintained-and rewards us for ensuring order and stability. This insinuation is especially false because almost everyone has felt great satisfaction upon righting a past wrong. This argument makes radical acceptance banal because any sane person already knows that pursuing the impossible is insane: the only remaining insinuation is that the conflict is insufficiently fruitful. Some radical acceptors therefore argue that radical acceptance excludes this madness, advocating only not pursuing impossible vengeance. These deterrences are cornerstones of social interaction and would persist even in ideal conditions.įor example consider the following two scenarios, wherein the RA is the Radical Acceptor, the M is the malfeasant, and N is the normal person.īy not immediately trying to let-go of the past, the normal person keeps their pencil instead of losing three and their temper. To, like radical acceptance argues, always and immediately let past wrongs go un-righted is to invite invasion e.g., to let others take from you what they will, to let them hit and run, to never ensure that those who wrong you may not rest. It goes to the will and sense of boundaries, creating a listless, pathetic individual who has desperately feigning such indifference that whoever tramples them might leave before their pent-up rage explodes. Few if any radical acceptors will demonstrate their implicitly-alleged immunity to pain by experiencing unpleasant situations over and over again. Like the previous paragraph mentioned, these invalidated emotions and unresolved conflicts will not fade but fester into hideous phenomena of the unconscious. The most condemning evidence is that radical acceptance is said to bring relief-end feeling-and never is mentioned in happy situations, when feeling is desirable.įurthermore is the second assertion "serenity" and its insinuation "madness". Telling a sane person to "accept" a bad event therefore is pointless and instead insinuates either that the person is so psychotic that they think they can change the past or that they should surrender their fight against the wrongs against them, invalidate themselves and pretend nothing happened under a Stepford Smile. Only lunatics denies reality the value of events is irrelevant. The first assertion is "acceptance" and its insinuation is "invalidation". Understanding this hideous philosophy requires switching from literal to non-literal argument by turns, carefully ignoring non-explicit arguments during the literal interpretation. It does the above not by asserting one thing and insinuating the opposite, rendering its victims unable to argue without running afoul of either argument or themselves. Uncriticized, this beast ravages the world, twisting and breaking, ripping and tearing our feelings from us and burying them under denial without a shred of justification. Radical Acceptance is madness of the worst sort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |