The term cognitive dissonance is primarily used in psychological theory to explain the inner turmoil we feel when we trust two opposing beliefs. This could be why we smoke cigarettes irrespective of the known dangers or drink alcohol having previously experienced a hangover. I have begun to feel a type of cognitive dissonance in relation to my grief. I don't want it, I didn't ask for it but there is an attachment to it that enables me to continue to be connected to the time when Ruby was alive. More than simply remembering a time when she was here I am still in the same chronological phase, as long as I am grieving. I know grief is bad but I also feel as if I need it- it keeps me linked to Ruby in a way I am fearful to disconnect from.
I have been thinking more closely about Stoicism. This noble school of philosophy survived from around 300 BCE until the dark days of state-forced Christian religion at around 200 CE. It was thereafter driven away from mainstream acceptance until the Enlightenment of the 18th century.
Its main protagonists were two fascinating characters, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. Aurelius was a Roman general who spent much of his military life on the sparse fringes of the Roman Empire defending it from extremely tough hordes of Germanic maniacs and wrote his ideas from his lonely tent, physically exhausted but emotionally charged. Seneca was a teacher and advisor to Nero, an emperor famous for murdering his mother and step-brother and known for his brutal sadism to children, Christians and to local townsfolk because he was rumoured to walk the streets at night, randomly stabbing passers-by to death. By any standards Seneca's most famous student was a psychopathic megalomaniac.
Stoicism's doctrine can be summed up by two lines of inquiry- indifference and self-control. Indifference, in this strict sense, means being emotionally unaffected and neutral by things beyond our control such as death, ageing or bad weather. Self-control is what we are to gain over those things within reach- our desires, our emotions, our fears. Stoics believed an ideal mental state would be one where there is harmony between these two ideas.
By committing myself to a relationship I have invited the possibility, in all likelihood the probability, of loss. Loss is a natural occurance in human relationships, an involuable element of the human community and is likely to be beyond my control. To the Stoics death and loss cannot be controlled and one should remain indifferent to it- trees can only survive if leaves die in Autumn and provide the sustainance for continued growth- death is necessary for much of life and constitutes half it's natural cycle. In addition, the emotions experienced in relation to this loss are my emotions and I will therefore learn to have mastery over them and eventual control. It is this harmony over death and loss using ideas of neutrality and self-discipline that provide an ideal state, they believed, of courage, dignity and living a "good life".
There is much to be offered by the focus on self-improvement through frugality and learning by Epicureanism or the hippyish dropping-out of Cynicism but Stoicism provides a beautifully simple approach to life. Is it very tough to achieve and involves a great deal of practise and reflection and so its simplicity belies the hard work involved. But, as with any great endeavour, there are few rewards greater than those earned from conscientious instigation.
