At this stage in my development, it makes sense to me to think of my emotional being and my intellect as separate beings, in dialogue. What decision is proper to be made by one or the other? How may they work together? Can I bring out their separate views, and decide between them?
In the case of my seeking to practise complementary therapies, I am not sure the strong Rationalist rejection of them is in fact my intellect speaking. It has a different, emotional feel. I think it is the shadow of my emotional being, feeling fear of this work, and projecting onto the intellect a rejectionist, rather than a sceptic, view. The sceptic will accept the evidence of her own senses. Where the theory- meridians of energy, say- does not appear to relate to physiological entities, the sceptic can say that even if the theory of causes is not true, the observations of effectiveness can be. The rejectionist refuses to accept evidence, or is more critical of it than it deserves and demands a higher standard of proof than is reasonable. That is an emotional rather than a rational response. I am certainly conscious of the desire to do this work, and investigate possibilities.
I think it is my old fear, and my old anger. These need further work.
In the case of that woman who is enchanting- that metaphor has so much more meaning for me now- and captivating, but not always entirely kind, my emotional being is all at sea; How do I feel? Still captivated. Appalachian Spring came on the car radio, and I was screaming and weeping thinking of a particular memory- how could I be that stupid in that particular one of several trivial instances? So, I search out the appropriate memory. With one so completely charming, there is little to choose from, but that moment is the one. “Calm down” she snapped, and I felt crushed, humiliated and betrayed. My intellect picks the memory for my emotional being to work on, to create the necessary distance. Oh, and one day Valentine’s Day will not irk me…