Injected emotions: reason for despair
There are many emotions and associating attachments, in lives of the people, and there is always a claim of these feelings the expressions, being prudent and strong in their nature, is it really the “persons” feelings or are these feelings an end result of something else. Are these emotions or attachments, result of something which has come externally, here the author means, part of the social set up or societal organisation, like for most of the people there is emotion of large affinity to ones wardrobe, but you can only see yourself when in front of the mirror and obviously full sized mirror cant be carried all the times, don’t the readers feel this affinity towards the wardrobe is more for laying an impression on the interacting person which is due to emotion of being honoured and respected? As its is quite certain, even after wearing a luscious attire, hardly is there a feeling of that cloth rubbing against the skin of the body, the sensory cells of the organ (on which it is worn, shirt or trouser) after a brief period doesn’t recognise the “ price” of that attire, but it is the individual who tries to feel the thing by narrating it, by thoughts, but even this for a certain period, before loosing the feel of it, even mentally. By mentioning all the above, the author just wants to draw its reader, towards two things, which is the cause of the injected “emotion” and also the state in which it is expressed, the expression of most or rather all of the emotions, is unconscious, which is proven, of how the body looses the feel and how the individual tries to force of the “value” of the thing. Like wise there is log of emotions, which the author has been conveyed (by participants/ listeners during various sessions), like antagonism, prejudice, love, care and lots others, who are somehow branches of these, as mentioned above, but to the surprise of the bearer, as was for the author, these emotions are injected into the system, as the body naturally doesn’t has any feel or inclination for them, and as is the case with any foreign placement ( like medicine) these induced emotions also fade away, including the emotion with religion (which is nowadays the cause of turmoil around the world).
After placing a few examples for the readers the author would urge its readers to give it a thought, is there any emotion in you, which is natural and stays there and you are aware of all the times, or is it that there is induced formula which is applied all the times to have the sense of the emotion? What is it, that is there at all the times which stays with you and there is always a sense of it being there with you, a feel which has not been forgotten, irrespective of the situation(s), has the reader been kind enough to oneself and discovered/ realised what is it which keeps, itself, joyous all the times, a thing with which the body hasn’t got bored with? The author being no authority to enlist and provide a ready made answer, a fast food type provision, would urge its readers to sit back and feel is any of the emotion/attachment, real, means if not impressed upon, does stay?
There are many facets for the emotions to be felt or owned, society, is one of them, whose set up makes the person have attachment or emotions as there has been an precedence of having so. Like if your child isn’t behaving sane, or your spouse or your partner, and there is a natural feel of being away from it, but due to the existing set ups in almost all of the societies across the globe, the individual forces upon certain emotions of love, care (which aren’t really natural), and when it is done for a longer period it is deemed to be so and must be carried out, irrespective wether that is natural or induced, which is the root of all the dismay and despair. As there are times when the individual isn't keeping well with health, and there is someone (who is claimed to be emotionally attached with) tries to do something which the prevailing health conditions aren't permitting, then there is a natural feel of shooing away that "dear", like wise when a close "dear" dies then there is hardly any case (even to mention) that the individual died, of course the individual cries but not get buried in the same coffin, has never happened, these are brutal and rough examples, but the intention of the author is just to lay the point straight.
Doesn’t the reader feel, that if there has to be integrity towards anything or anyone, the individual deserves the right and authority to have it first for itself?