Everyone is force fed a lifestyle. We are born into what we are born into. A “nuclear family” of a gay couple, male or female, demonstrates a certain lifestyle to an admittedly impressionable young mind. The only reason people differ from their piers is because circumstances defined them as they were when they were a child, either by example or situation. A scary situation dealing with anger, even one moment, can cause so much trauma in a young child, and it would be good to recollect the little limerick that i made on page 67 in the last “Collection”. Not even anger of their parents, but anger of teachers, peers [not piers of the same pronouncement; i can finally understand that word i hate- “peeps.” I still hate it though (time index: 12:13 AM, you see i am a “night owl”, not the coolest superhero name, but…whatever, just forget it)], themselves- which usually ends up as a combination of these others –can affect them. I do not and never will believe that a child is as little as the parents’ conscious or unconscious extension of personality, but in fact a separate psychological entity; one can only hope. This happens even though a parent’s fears can and in many cases will transfer to the child. All i can do is hope for this, why, i never can be too sure, but this is the best i can do for now.
Some people never grow up from this childlike state, completely. There are often maturity issues in the best of us, the perfect example being the incredibly hilarious and super rich Robin Williams. In so much of his movies, he behaves in a manner that is unbecoming of most grown men. i would like to find one title where this is not so, to at least some extent. Even the disappointing movie “Man of the Year” is a partial synergy of political satire, comedy, and the indomitable personality of the main star. What can i say for all this is that he needs attention. He is a social creature, of which i am also a specimen, and there is no faulting his comic genius. He actually makes many claims to still being immature in some manners, but, ironically enough, that is quite mature of him. However, a much more perfect example for what i’m talking about is unfortunately, my own father. *Big sigh* he is not too mature to pout and have temper tantrums, but we treat him as he appears to be, a child, where we move on with our lives after each little event and pretend as if they never happened- the “ride out the storm” type strategy. I suppose that, ultimately, this is no one’s business, but it is my business and can tell whomever i want. It is, however unfortunate as it may turn out, my life. i have been blessed/ smitten with a higher degree of maturity, i think. But, as in so many personal matters, i have difficulty seeing past myself and into myself. A certain sense of ego is omnipresent, but, in a life where i want to be as much as an individual as possible, this is the best defense i can carry with me, to protect me from me, you see…or do you really? Not that i care, especially, this is quite beside the point.
In fact, i’ve nearly lost sight of the actual point. Ah yes, how the world is us, to a unique ratio, which is greatly summed as individuality. The “society” which we are a part of is largely a fabrication created by middle men, and yes, there are also female news anchors. By acting the part that they are told, to increase ratings and what not, they pretend to be the voice of a collective subconscious of the masses. The same ignorant masses who deny the true power of such an entity, if it exists, which, to my knowledge, is a definitive yes. This is ego reductionism, an ego based process by which one lowers the value of the self which, in turn allows more objectivity and less attachment to pain suffered by the actual ego, although almost all of this lacks physical manifestation. The basic problem with suicide may be the intense exaggeration of such a process which would lead to termination of such useful brain cells, tsk, tsk. The world needs more working brain cells to fuel global economy, and in a
vague sense, survival. However, again the under thinking mind is subject to such over reductionism as a means of ultimately satisfying the self, but not the organism which it is so closely attached, and so, is a large part of ego mania, but in a different form than is readably recognized. Again, the pleasure and pain complex created by weak, animal mentality (from a psychological standpoint) is all about survival. Pain is death. Cells die every time pain is felt. Some would argue that this overdrive of basic deoxyribonucleic initiative is a factor, even cause for such phenomenon. But such an impartial word scares people. Limiting people to sets of organs, neural interactions and animal instincts is a pessimistic idea in the hands of a fool, and many fear that this sense of scientific practice, also known as reductionism, will lead to personal despair; such idiotic happenstances as mass suicide, and the hearing of it being effects of more idiots that cannot identify their own sense of self but accept their own worthlessness in exchange for their physical selves. i said once before that the portal of death is an extremely dicey passage for the self to take, and any dullard (just for change of noun) mentally inactive in this field deserves what’s coming to him. Man is an animal, but damn it all, the king of animals. No person, male, female, or otherwise (yes they exist, called hermaphrodites) should be steered by these outdated Darwinist principals, unless, in the doing so, they are effectively removing their intellectual debts from the gene pool. I would not want this of anyone capable of carrying on a decent, entertaining, or illuminating conversation, and by decent, all i really mean is intelligible. For the most part, vulgarism is an ineffective deterrent for me. Yes, low social standards, hah hah, laugh it up now whilst you have the gall. I intend to offend everybody that reads this, but the really difficult part of this is trying to offend myself. Committing a fau paw is the only workable strategy here, but i want to erase any mistakes made, unless it is in self expression and it might come back to bite me in the ass. Quite a good chance of that, i think. With that i can no longer be on board that momentary self persuasion, a tiny journey into myself.
i must admit, i am not that fascinating, compared to some, but i would love to boast, over just about anything else, and there really is a short list, believe me, that i can hold anyone’s attention for some time and communicate what i am to as many people as i wish. I want that feedback. Unfortunately, the process for reviewing this information is faulty, not surprising, and i may be unable to overcome the nagging suspicion that someone doesn’t hold up to my social standards, in which case i arrogantly discard their input. This is one way i rediscovered my love for infatuation, a loophole in my subconscious which allows me to be a better person and yet still get what my more conscious mind desires. Yes, i think that i am thinking these things without my really knowing them too well. Oh well, it is about putting my thoughts in a real tangible place instead of my broken memory system to analyze them and figure out what i like and want to apply to what i loosely call my self. This is one way of figuring out my own place for me in the world, disregarding utilitarian ideology. I would love to think i know as much about what it means to be a living, breathing consciousness compared to the many that have lived as long or perhaps centuries longer than i have. My life does, in affect, begin with me, like it or not, to everyone reading this.
I don’t think any part of a person can contradict any other part of a person, i don’t. Not without amazing quantities of ignorance, which, i already illustrated, is the host of Duke Paradox (referring back, of course, to my overly clever visual metaphor). Unfortunately, this appears to be quite common. I would love to say that it isn’t all too common, when one makes general statements based off of behavioral observances, a.k.a. deductive reasoning. Looking at a recent movie, the acclaimed Blood diamond, i see that.
“How,” a basic question that every child asks and we older citizens learn to ignore as it skulks around in our unanimous psyche. “Why,” is what we are taught to ask, but really, isn’t that always an opinion? Even if it is God’s opinion, what really makes that one ideology the best one? Just more impartial, unimportant strips of information. But, even in such situations, which may or may not have any relevance in this universe, how this is possible remains the predominant question. That question has a simple answer, although as it gets more and more technical, the more specific you wish the answer to be: information, behaving as it always does, in accordance with what it is. To be more exacting, information is, right, but it is always being transfigured into another type, or a different arrangement of itself, due to itself, meaning it reacts with other bits of information that are considered different elements in the equations. However, the relativistic approach realizes that this isn’t occurring through time, for this series of events occurs exactly in the order it should, and every moment, whether in the past, present, or future contexts, is a moment that is immutable and complete, and cannot be truly separated into events and elements, except as a thought exorcise, for analytical purposes.
Or can they? In any event, the how and whys, just the same, remain constantly illusive due to the nature of cognizance, which depend upon an outsider’s connection to those that exist in this reality, this can be applied equally to humanity and individual humans. But, to truly say that there is anything outside of reality is to say that it doesn’t exist, or to say that there is an infinite reality of which we are just a small partitioned-off province. But