INTOLERANCE AND IMPOSITION ( II )

Intolerance implies imposition " this no, that yes ". Behaviors or situations categorized as incorrect they must be neutralized by measures that counteract it. Incivility is fought with civility, aggressions with respect. Expressions considered inappropriate are not tolerated ¿ but what are these really ? If in a given culture the same acts are not punishable and in other parts they deserve punisment ¿ who measures and who is right in the assessments ' There are impartial intolerant and partial intolerant. Those who are equanimous in the face of similar events sticking to some principles. And the partials that are tough on opponents or about what don´t like, and on the other hand if theirs do then they are condescending and it doesn´t matter. There are two types on intolerant and two types om impostors, intolerant driven by selfish interests or desires, not to claim the just suitable or convenient, rejecting anything that jeopardizes their claims. And the intolerant who moves thinking about the whole and the adverse consequences depending on what acts, and to combat it it needs decrees, laws and regulations. Who measures what is tolerable that what is not ? At what point are the boundaries crossed ? How can we know if the diagnosis is correct ? Is intolerable means " this can not be, can not be done " it is to be assumed by the consequences and the impact. What exactly is wrong ? the background, the shapes, both ? what is the retort of the intolerant ? what do they offer ? Impose what we want according to subjective values or ideas, if it leads to contempt, humililiation, invading the land of others, this can not be tolerated, is intolerable. The dictator we carry inside repel what is far from our tastes, crieria and values. However, it is one thing to dislike and another not tolerate. Between acceptance and non acceptance it implies greater factors of rejection of what is manifested. One would no longer have to be intolerant if everyone made sure to be right, nor would impositions be required when each behaved neatly. Both intolerance and imposition they may arise from primitivism or civility. Observing the posture and the result we will know if it inclines in one or in the other direction.

INTOLERANCE AND IMPOSITION ( I )

What is not tolerated ? What is said or how is it said ? What is done or how is it done ? What highlights our mistakes, inaccuracies ? What is the underlying reason for feeling so offended ? And the retort of not accepting what is said or done, is imposing another way of saying and doing. What we say or do is absolute truth, absolute justice, what is really right ? Behind these manifestations are too many egoic influxes and much mediocrity of believing it untouchable. Day by day we witness these nonsense. Of insignificant comments originate wildfires. Of a simple protest the dissidents must be severely punished. What does not sound good to the ear must be removed, covered or punished.Then those who only think of censoring speak of freedom, by oppressing, liquidating, so that only his dictatorial desire reigns to say and do whatever they want, but opponents must be suppressed. How do conflicts originate ? By the dispute between two discordant parties deffending different interests where the strongest want to make the weakest give up so that their ideological and power claims are imposed by force. And so the years pass. So much for filling your mouth with good intentions or pronounce the word democracy when the facts show the rudeness of the methods in search of unworthy objectives. And the reasonable citizen until when we must continue to tolerate brutality, indecency, the unjust justice and the gang of conjurers who govern ? Perhaps we organize ourselves and let the abused be the ones who impose the canons of conduct that truly sould reign.

WHY DO WE WANT WHAT WE WANT ( II )

What do we want and what should we want ? Does the impulse come from inferior or refined nature ? Will the beloved leads us to what we need ? With very limited knowledge, disconnected from the root of our idiosyncrasy and pending to decipher the why of situations, relationships and circumstances for its purpose ¿ how many of us truly know what to ask for and be more appropriate according to the individual peculiarities and goals to achieve ? We want what is external to us, for if we have it internalized we don´t ask for it. According to the longed for will be to internalize it temporarily or projected indefinitely. Preserving or achieving what we don´t have involves some kind of exchange, an effort where we have to offer or give something in return. If they are transient things or small quantity decisions can be made quickly. In large scale investments or in acquiring long term commitments, we will have to weigh pros and cons extensively for the consequences and the possible incidence in different sections. Everyone depends on the essentials, and the particular conditions of each one with room for maneuver, the individual function to be performed and the claims to be set through time, it will make us want some things or others. There will be things that will accompany us briefly, others a season, others perhaps decades, and only a few constantly. It will all depend on the service and the fulfillment of the purpose, whether it is a context, objects or relationships, pointing out that we don´t have to cling to anything because it may disappear whether we like it or not. Accumulate days is established in DNA. Most don´t ask why and to do what, and we must want to raise the bar of nonconformism in order to not susbsit and enough. Find out in depth the goal of weight and value of why we are the way we are and what we must carry out that gives meaning and benefit to experiences and efforts. Linking constant beginnings and endings, one routine after another it must be much more than covering files and keeping us going, amd what we should want is to illuminate what is behind it of what we do and see endowing the existence of meaning.