Not a theory or concept to discuss or argue about. One can’t rationalize it effectively while they are suffering. Suffering is intrinsically isolating and tenderizing. If tenderizing is allowed it may give rise to patience, humility, etc. Tenderizing should be allowed, so it seems.
1 Like
Yeah. That’s what seems too.
But, when someone says “Urgency of Change” or else “Humanity will end”,etc…,etc… - Is the thing hinders…Isn’t it?.. .Russia is not stepping back from Ukraine, and so China from Taiwan, but China is okay without a war and make smooth dealing, but Russia is in another thought and landed 1,00,000 troops… USA is not at good terms by this act of Russia, and sending it’s troops to Eastern Europe…USA is not ready to give up it’s dominance in world-trade market…China is in full form to take over Taiwan within 2027 and the Pacific Front, which Inda-Japan-Australia-US are standing against and making trade-wars… European countries watching all this silently, maybe spending their time in supporting Chelsea for Club World Cup?? 
…India, making fun in a different way, by making aggression of “Hindi” and “Corporates” in ‘Union of States in India’, mainly in South India, and that’s how show their “POWER” by dominating ‘it’s own poor people’ rather than dealing with intrudes in “Ladakh,Arunachal Pradesh” or North-eastern borders… 
… North Korea, a way different… Somehow, Ukraine or Pacific front, is the place where escalating fears of World War 3… Earth,Air,Water have been already polluted, by exploitation for ‘joys/ reducing time/energy and saving money’
I feel, as Charley said, “It’s already in destruction and nothing can be done”. Maybe, all of us to meet in another world, with another thoughts and another beliefs and all sets of emotions??..Think so…Okay, back to dialogue from Politics.
As you said, without tenderizing (even I too stayed in that manner before joining here), a deep observation of sufferings never happens. Maybe that’s the ‘process’ of ‘not indulging in any process’?? Yeah, seems to be…
People, in K society, takes up an idea of “Belief is wrong” and “psychological thought is wrong” and etc…, so deep understanding on “beliefs” and “Thoughts” never happens in the labeling of “wrong” and staying aside from it.
Without labeling it as “Good/bad”, to look at all ‘beliefs and theories and thoughts and emotions’ - as it is, and let one isolate and tenderizing in looking at it, is ‘The Process’ I feel…
Thanks for bringing it up.
Regards,
Viswa. 
If one isn’t consumed by sorrow one isn’t really suffering, so it seems.
Regards
1 Like
This reminds me of the chick pea analogy - where constant subjection to boiling water renders them delicious.
I have heard that suffering may also lead to trauma.
Trauma is included in suffering. But the problem or the question of suffering isn’t for them to whom suffering is a game of hearsay.
So, if I get your drift : Suffering might be beneficial, but we shouldn’t talk about it.
Still, if one IS suffering, one must start somewhere. In talking things over with others, one can learn about oneself. There may be gaps in which one is shocked, shaken or moved by something. One might be hurt or angry and yet one plods ahead, aware of the hurt, anger and fear. And perhaps another movement overlays itself on the movement of suffering. There can be learning at any moment. There is no one to guide us but life itself, and yet we move, perhaps blindly, but we experiment and perhaps we can be blessed with patience and humility. Perhaps something chips away at our self-centredness. This might be the tenderizing. Perhaps not.
Tenderizing,
One has never heard of anyone on the planet using the word “tenderizing” except as it applied to anything else except food, especially meat, which one has never done. So, one did some googling just now, as one couldn’t understand how one could it apply to human beings and apparently it is a word that has been used with regards to human flesh… pain… Will leave it to the reader to figure out the rest…
Dear Charley,
Language evolves. For example, the English spoken today is not identical to Shakespeare’s, is it. Dictionaries are often updated to reflect changes in vocabulary.
It seems to me that “tenderize” is easily understandable in the present context. It means to make tender — not meat but the (living) heart perhaps. Maybe that’s not what probatio diabolica intended but that’s what I understood. Something like that.
Huguette,
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Who knows, he could explain, eh? Introducing a word like that. made me curious, so I googled. And what I saw made me close that tab immediately. Not into that sort of thing.
It is possible, when one is worshiping the god of the “gaps” then one is simply worshiping a false god, out of greed and fear, to soothe the hurt and the anger,
One doesn’t need to “learn” or “experiment” about one’s suffering. It’s always there beneath the façade, beneath the subtle pretenses from the overlays of collected knowledge. Without tenderization, “talking things over with others” seems to be just a front, for other things, as the evidence so clearly proves.
That is to be expected. One may frequently use, talk, parrot phrases like “opening of the heart” etc. but without an insight into the matter (any matter) they will show a lack of understanding of the very words they use as weapons and shields. They will fail to see and explain the correlations between the subtle aspects and nuances of the matter, in this case the correlation between sorrow, heart, and tenderizing. Let the reader figure out the rest…
The reader will note the word tenderize and tender not only share the same root but also share a similar meaning. The hardened frozen heart of humanity, that is calcified not only figuratively but also literally, absorbed only in its own self-interests and pursuits, can only be tenderized by sorrow and suffering. Sorrow is to the heart (physical or otherwise), what the meat tenderizer is to meat, so it seems.
probatio diabolica,
Does suffering make the heart sensitive or tender only to one’s own sorrow, or does it make one sensitive to everyone’s sorrow? Is there only one person who suffers and the rest of us are at peace, or does all humanity suffer?
You have followed the thread so far and perhaps you have thought about this a bit, what do you think?
P.S.- If i am not replying to you right away know that the staff of this site have limited the number of posts i can post per day as a “new user”. I got a notification after my exchange with ‘macdoug’ yesterday.
It seems however the questions are irrelevant at this point. It’s not about what sorrow “does” (result) at this point, but the nature of sorrow and the capacity to be with sorrow. To see the underlying sorrow beneath all our facade.
tenderizing:
root: Sanskrit root: tanṓti
which evolved into the Greek: “thin”,
and from there to the Latin tenuis “thin”, which evolved into the words:
“extenuate” and "attenuate - “thin out” - hence “stretch out” such as one does when one stretches out the “tendons” (another word etymologically related) in meat to tenderize it, by beating the meat
also,
“tendril” - thin plant parts
The Germans have also altered the original meaning thinsan to suggest “spinning” (of all things, hence the spinner or weaver, as they take wool and stretch it out to make spun wool). One has seen so many people define words in terms of present conditions, and obviously these people are the word-spinners of the modern era. And like all intellectuals who seek to buttress their thoughts on the subjects through the introduction of new words, they spin words that have lost their original meaning so as to suit their ideology, and such new terms are also called and become euphemisms behind which to hide.
This evolution like all the words that have evolved through the millennia, have changed and moved with the times to keep up with generations of corruption and degeneration - hence losing their original meaning - the meaning of which originally applied to people who lived with much less conditioning, leading to the many cold-hearted denizens of our planet, with whom we all live alongside with. One cannot “soften” (make tender) someone else’s heart with words, or even by thinning out the damage, can one??
Even words like “pretend” (also etymologically related) originally meant = put (“stretch”) oneself forward, whence the pretender who puts forward a false claim to something, whence the modern, deceptive sense.
It is so easy to invent any new word, or even to alter an old word, to “stretch out”, “thin out” these situations, to englobe a supposed “different” way of looking at the same ole problem, all with the same intent - to hide the original meaning, to encourage people to adopt and follow a supposed “new” way of looking at the same ole problem.
Just one thing: there is no freedom after “thinning out” the damage, is there?
One repeats that there are some really good words that have come out of the K lit - awareness, observation, conditioning, intelligence, goodness, etc. Throwing more words into the pot is going to complicate and add more confusion to people who are already confused.
Speaking of pretenders and aspiring gatekeepers, a lack of insight will always demand that the matter be spelled out to them. Once spelled out they will glean and make it their own, without as much as a thanks. A form of stealing. Then they will create concepts around it and try to peddle it as if it is their own, like deceptive cons. This is in brief how the human mind works presently, when it comes to lack of insight and gleaning/stealing, as can be observed.
If sorrow is a good thing, maybe we should spread more of it around?
I will however agree that fighting against, trying to forbid or escape from sorrow, is just silly, just more conflict and sorrow… In that way sorrow should be allowed.
The problem or the question of suffering isn’t for them who are drifting between “if” hypotheticals.
One is spreading more of it around, when they are playing the game of hypotheticals, instead of looking into their own sorrow.
But Charley my dear, we are all endlessly adding words of every kind to the pot, aren’t we. We are all confused to some degree, as I see it. Can’t we just slog through and see what, if anything, we can discover or understand for ourselves? Maybe nothing, maybe something. Is there nothing that is unclear to you? As for me, I can’t say that.
When you use a heavily loaded word like suffering you have to define what you mean for the sake of clarity.