You know what? Because i sure don’t. I would like to say with definite certainty that i’m right in my philosophies.
But… there may be someone out there with a more perfect conception.
No, not Christian theology, that just doesn’t do it for me. It is so… personal, not a set dogma; not one, at least, that is in many regards, not completely laughable. The parochial “relationship” is not one that exists swimmingly; there are vague forces of evil that always come between. The notion of ‘loving’ an invisible, distant, and ironically enough, same gendered entity seems a tad too far. OK, more than just a tad, to be more honest. All these other invisible forces do not help describe reality as science sees it, but looks to replace it. However, being honest personally i would think is a lot easier than trying to describe all of reality with some far-fetched cannon of ancient, illogical texts. Are people really going to go to such extremes to find love? Are people that intolerable relationally?
Maybe they are. For one with super high standards, life is fraught with disappointments, but many do not have such high standards.
i would like to think i don’t do these things, but could i be wrong? And even assuming i do, is that really a crime? If no one else is hurt but me, then it is not such a tragedy.
Honesty and proper perspective are vital in daily life.
Although a perfect perspective is one where society is doomed to die: that is, if it is all perceived as information, then people are going to use that as an excuse to not care, not something i would like to see happen. But the pessimism that people normally associate with an impersonal philosophy is a product of ignorance, which, personally, disgusts me to no end. I feel that most, if not all, of societies problems exist due to ignorance in some form. Ignorance in personality, relational society, and philosophy are all the ones that need to be irradiated. I feel that these are the most heinous. Start with philosophy; everyone needs to understand their place in the universe, or reality, or what have you. They are a block of information, nothing more, and nothing less. Ah, but we are no different from each other or anything in nature in this regard.
Some would argue that god is bigger than nature.
But, as i have noticed, these philosophies serve to do nothing but massage a man’s ego by trying to invalidate the much larger framework of observable reality.
Unless reality is different than either you or i have observed.
That is a wild card that no idealism is lucky enough to have grasped for any length of time. And, if there is a lack of something concrete in all time, then there is a lack of substance and strength in any point of time.
People are really narrow in their scope of reality, is it because they have such short lives? And since the ultimate subconscious impulse is a directory of survival, then all emoticons and life predicaments are solved off of this Darwinist principal.
Referencing Darwin again, a fallible man, who was trying to revel in the supposed brilliance of his still susceptible theories?
Regarding him as an egotist brings me squarely to the next point in my argument. The powers of the complexity of consciousness allow man to associate any idea with himself, and the sustaining of a man’s sense of self further allows him to survive, physically. However, one could then point out that some are so adamant in their defense emotionally and socially that they commit suicide. Then we can assume that that person has completely transferred his sense of self into an abstract, i.e. his “soul”. This puts quite a bit of faith in the power of an unattached soul, which, according to paranormal observation, has little to no awareness of reality, or freedom; religion shares these parallels. They are set to a point in complex space, the place of death, or a very emotionally intense area of their life, as the tales are told. Man does have the ability, i gather, to survive outside of physical embodiment. And while this does lend credibility to religion, you materialists, it does not mean that anyone has the right idea, you Christians, Muslims, devil worshippers, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Wicca enthusiasts, and all the other ones that there are(far too many). Still, due to the lack of powerful and well-intentioned following, principal, or otherwise, no religion has me in its circle.
i do really wonder what it is…; sex and sexuality, i am saying. How embarrassing it is, for me, here, to talk about it, but whatever gets me pages and pages of work done. And although i cannot deny my utter fascination with these two (only god knows why, but the prick won’t tell anyone), i must admit it is exceedingly treacherous to allow oneself to be assaulted by pleasure. Or pain, for that matter. Being controlled by subconscious desire for eroticism has paved a wide berth to deaths door. Yet i do not find exploring to be evil. I find ignorance to be. In this case, caution is the most formidable defense against angst. Yes, yes, ignorance is the true emperor. That much is clear to me. People can control the animals’ passions that sleep (and dream their silly but very arousing little dreams into ours) within themselves, despite the unique difficulties of such an endeavor. I wish to… or do i? See, even now i am debating the level of enjoyment i can achieve when i am constantly staving off the “unclean” desires from my reality. i put myself through many an unnecessary trial in this department, which is also true. Right now, as i so wish to be ineloquent and exceedingly forthright in my hopefully modest opinions, a nagging inability to offend what few people that talk to me fights what i might wish to be really saying. To be helpful to those unafraid of the reality of a distinct self beyond their own, let me create this legend:
Edwardian Script ITC, to protect myself in intelligence and impersonality,
Fiolex girls to highlight the stuff of the real substance here, (do i have to say it?) And jokewood, to… well…yeah, where unfortunately a dirty pun is intended, but the statements are satirical about my coitus obsession. In this regard, it is not so different from Edwardian Script, but in comedy, not intelligence, i seek to find rest from this weary world in the ears of others.
While on the subject of dirty jokes – I wonder if a “wet willy” means what i have come to think it does? i sure hope it doesn’t, or do i? Or do i, indeed; struggling to fight the urge to masturbate, due to religious frowning upon such an act, is bending to the whim of an ignorant mass. Of curse, many sexual taboos are the product of discomfort at the prospect of separate entities, either religiously or psychologically. This is because difference has long been a precursor to violence, just look at history. People are afraid of change, in society, in themselves, and so it is a safe assumption that what was true in the past is true for the future. But the fear of the unknown is but a reflection of the fear of their own ignorance, and fear of weak-mindedness is weak-mindedness. Ultimately, people need to usurp the king whose name is Ignorance, in a personal sense and a societal one, to better form a union of individuals, rather than a disunity of states. Yes, i am talking about the U.S. here, but any state, any coalition, any coming together, even cumming [i was so disappointed, it’s not even a word] together, applies equally as well. Yes, two people (or more)who find it pleasant to have sex together, for various reasons, can; not for reasons based off of some dogma set down by a tribe of wandering theocrats in the Middle East. If that is who you wish to identify with, then so be it; but remember, the past is no different from the future unless ignorance is dethroned in all its seats of power.
No, i sure didn’t. It’s not as if you really were wondering if i talked about what i was trying to up there, but every statement my brain makes i try to give explanation. It is the bulk of my conversations. Same for omissions, grammar mistakes, spelling errors, etcetera. It is the social nature that i identify with that i feel the need to express myself, not that it matters to anyone beyond me and those whom i wish to converse with. Of course, being a human of finite depth and personality, ignorance has a loose hold over every action i have done. This is not unnatural, for we have been ignorant in some regard about everything. Why else would petty conflict arise? Even the most profound argument is an argument, and none is perfect. Man vs. the world: man vs. nature, man vs. himself, man vs. society, man vs. eternity, or the lack of one, man vs. man (by far the most petty), man vs. beast, and man vs. god (or again, the lack of one). Why set oneself against fate, against all these powerful forces, if not for personal gain? I don’t feel that there is any one of these battles that doesn’t center itself around the ego. Any altercation is based off of differences in view.
Not that this is an issue, because, if not for the reactionary nature of different elixirs (chemical, emotional, psychological, physical, spiritual, and all the other forms) reality would not, in any tangible sense, exist. Aaaah, but if one always assumes that reality is in the tangible set of experience, then they can only sit back and wait for reality to disprove their egotism. “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” but these forces can be diverted to one individual, or a different local than the originator. Action, in the sense of the most applicable, is only thought, or the complex systems that exist from these elements of change. But thought itself is not fundamental, because it must be recalled constantly and consecutively in any argument – information is. Any type of it, naturally, not bits or quantum numbers, chemicals or relations, words or behaviors, but all of the above. And there are many more forms that have yet to be discovered in the hidden recesses of reality. Of this i