What we feel for pain, is the practical wound, created for the practical application that is healing. Hunger, for instance, is a practical wound. This hunger, like all hunger, when felt by the self, is a practical wound, felt as physical pain, and it can only be cured with something else practical or physical, being nutrition.
Yet, were we to make a trip to the grocery store to find that nutrition, so that ourselves could be sustained, then what of others? That is the impractical lifestyle of love. There has been, throughout the 20th century, a futile belief that practicality and pragmatism is the better route, over something as impractical as religion. Take that bit of knowledge into account, when understanding that when one is only practical, one is merely a survivalist, and forsakes the human understanding that one can only “survive” with other people.
The brain, being composed of three separate “levels”, from lowest to highest, being survivalist, creationist, and rest, is what’s next to be illustrated.
We tread from the lower brain to the middle brain, and thus, we have ourselves going from the survivalist mentality, to the creationist mentality. After-which, we may surface to the comforted mentality. The “comforted” mentality, being the higher brain, and that is when we have full reign over the two steps below. We have, of the pauper, the person appearing as the emaciated skeleton. We have, of the person who rises above the survivalist mentality, to the creationist mentality, the one who “sculpts flesh over the bones of the pauper”, so to speak. Like an artist, they have helped, and aided to the art world, by taking to that “impractical lifestyle”, when knowing that should they have focused solely on practicality, they would never have helped the starving pauper. Like an artist, they have “sculpted” the flesh over the bones of the pauper, by giving them sustenance.
When we are impractical, we contribute to art, creation, and we are one step above poverty. When we are practical, we contribute to inward discovery of the self, only desiring to mold the self into shape, denying that no one is helping along the way.
Love only occurs when we are impractical. When we are wholly practical, we are mere survivalists, who in that sense, are always consumers. That is, through our practical ways, we will only help our own wounds, and be Xenophobic in helping others.
This is all to say that whoever was the one to inject the “impracticality is never the route, and only through practicality can we ever hope to cure problems” is at fault for every nation’s corruption. For what is “corruption”, as a definition? Corruption is appetite, and “appetite” is the most fundamental of human desires. Hunger, is always a trait for the self. Practical ways will not cure it, but more-so make people give into selfishness. Corruption comes around when we realize our own nightmares and fears are stemming from a continuous distrust in those who actually may feel our pain. A pauper feels another pauper’s pain. But, what of a former pauper to feel a current pauper’s pain? That is empathy. However, forming a relationship through sympathy will always operate more on distrust than trust. For the “sharing of bread” is most certainly the same as the “sharing of pain”.
Through sympathy, one would only understand poverty through its concept. They might lay out a blueprint on how it could be cured, though empathy and personal understanding would never be involved. “How far does Hell reach?” a politician may ask, when thinking on the poor that he’s aided. “As far as anyone can see inside of me,” may respond the pauper.
It is because “practicality” when made pure, has everything to do with only helping the self, and what comes of this is consumerism. The pauper knows nothing about helping others. And, like what’s been written above, they have seen themselves far too many times, to soon realize no one is coming for them. A “survivalist mentality” is, therefore, the mentality embedded into this current society that says to “love the self”. To “love the self” makes one the selfish artist, not willing to ever be objective or honest. They will cling to the Politically Correct world, the safe world within darkness, and never know what it means to take a risk. From “loving the self”, comes an obsession with appetite, with carnal or feral behavior, and no one can ever create. Therefore, to focus on practicality is only to focus on the self, and when focuses on the self, one believes self-love, and the notion by which states the words, “I only do this for myself.”
Most of all, when “impracticality” is referred to, most certainty “negligence” and “God” will be referred to. When we comprehend “God”, then we see the “impracticality” of love. When we see a grieving widow who wonders the words, “Why was God not there to save my husband?” we see also the “impracticality” of God. And, when we see a survivalist, or a pauper, what makes a better example than to know that the “impractical” ways are always the unseen ways, being those ways for people who are never around?
That is because “fear”, when injected into the mind, when trusted more by the mind, than any trust to be given for the loving one, is then to create a morbid distrust against the loving one.
Love is impractical, same with God, and same with anyone who believes they should only love or help themselves. What then, is the point in saying the words, “God does not exist” when “love” is never physical, nor practical?