I have a question:
Which one of these is a stronger act?
Feeling hurt and crying when something upsets you or suppressing the hurt and telling yourself that it is "ok" and you can move on?

I wonder if by NOT crying, by not feeling, I am hardening my heart. I fear that when I do this for long, a time will come when I will not feel at all, when I will be nothing but some kind of metal, so resistant that I won't even rust or wear out.

At the same time, however, in one sense I could be stronger, able resist the forces of nature and ultimately live for myself, by myself. Alone.

On the other hand, if I do feel and break down when events disconcert me, I feel like a time will come when I won't be able to carry on with my work. When the sadness will accumulate to a point in which I won't be able to see any joy.

In this case, I could argue that since I would be "feeling" things, I would be "living", unlike the former case.

But I do wonder which is better in the long run. People talk so much about "independence" and all that, but this also means resisting one's heart from feeling too much, getting too attached to others. Independence does come at a price. By no means am I saying that dependence is favorable in comparison. All I am saying is that they both come at a price. This whole thing about balance is too hard to do. But then again, this very struggle about balance is what keeps us living, what motivates us to use those feelings and harness them into art, which will in turn be a monument to a moment in time, that has the power to transcend death.