Reliance on Truth and some such ramblings on power principles...
Or alternately titled: "Oh No, He's Posting His Machiavellian Crap on the Internet Again! Why Can't I Just Have Normal Relatives?"
Note to self: don't rely so much on "truth" and instead rely more on parsing and processing all manner of power. If I were an RPG character, most of my character attribute points would be invested in curiosity or truth-seeking of some sort, intentionally or not. I have more curiosity than intelligence so it likely spills over into stupidity sometimes; I get short-sighted into seeking some ultimate intellectual truth regardless of optics or direct consequences. But beholding objective truth is a mere power among many and doesn't always garner priority in the social domain. Case in point, suppose a famous well-liked person passes away and in a comment section on a news site someone mentions a fairly benign negative mannerism or about a certain physical trait. Then someone comments with a highly upvoted reply on how they're not wrong, they're just an asshole. In that case, the power of the social supercedes the power of truth, even if it is an objective truth in the case of physical traits. In another opposite instance when the empathetic person and "asshole" are switched, suppose you have a commenter who mentions a positive and objectively true trait about a country we aren't on good terms with. Someone may then reply to that commenter on how they're not wrong, they're just a bot, shill, etc and perhaps that reply is more upvoted than the parent. In both cases the objective statements, or more specifically the beholder of those statements, may hold less power than the powers of the opposing social machine because the social machine may have objective statements of their own and in more numbers, numbers in this case being more hosts of those opposing objective truths. Power in the sense meaning more numerous, not necessarily other ways. So I'd just like to admit that in my pigeon-holed autistic-type manner of traversing this world, I sometimes lose track of the forest for the trees. We can't always disregard the power of numbers, the number of people hosting a view, ideology and such over other numbers such as what we may view as objective truths that may have more axiomatic data behind it because we should be reminded that science is a power-based system, it is also of and beholden to power laws. The more times we can repeat an experiment and it be true, the more powerful it is. The more axioms of data we have, the more powerful a theory becomes. It was and is a tool man created to traverse this world, to survive. Survival at some point may come to disregarding, at least momentarily and conveniently, certain objective truths in favor of working with temporary truths. For instance, you're in England in the Middle Ages and your head is on the chopping block unless you admit belief in Yahweh or kneel to the queen, what do you do? I think if one were reasonable and rational here, they'd admit temporary defeat in favor of survival and you live to fight the battle another day should you keep pursuing that battle. Perhaps you altruistically think you're doing a favor for humanity in the longrun but there will be no longrun should you not concede at least momentarily.
I must also remember that logic only goes so far. Sometimes I run many thought experiments as me from yesteryear, present me and every such me I can imagine in a sort of VM (virtual machine) though often to no avail because in the end I knowingly still run into the halting problem. You can't logically surmise these things without arriving there at some point and so in the end we sometimes have to resign ourselves to our mortal feelings or as Nietzsche might call our 'will to power'. In other words, using more familiar computer terminology, in all logical dimensions there is a dead end of processing when the main process thread relies on the input of other branched threads that are halted from lack of time/data to return to the main thread with relevant data because branch threads may be waiting on input from other branched threads and the more branched threads you have that rely on returned data from other branched threads, the higher chance of approaching a halting issue on the main thread in a logical processing facility, be it a computer or a mind. In other words, exponentially more time and power are required to traverse more time and power (data). Again, I see this tying into the Champion's Paradox or Einstein's mass-energy equivalence but it would take a greater mind than my own to make anything mathematically elegant of it. Conversely of course running the machine on just a will is also a dead end as it'll quickly degrade into degeneracy without being tempered by a ruleset so in the end you have to run the program with a moderate mix of logic as a sense mechanism and will as a driver mechanism or you might also say a good mix of order with amount of chaos, a software fuzzer, to feel or scan for unknown but perhaps relevant branches. Undriven logic goes nowhere while untempered will manifested as excess anger, sadness, happiness (if happiness is satisfaction, nothing will get done and I might even say life definitely has a bias towards dissatisfaction) and such go everywhere and so driving power is quickly diluted. Time and space being one, with excess power, time has to decrease to make up for inversely increasing space or power, something has to give and so excess power in a static system renders excess deviation from the static path as shown in electrical, radio, audio and other thermodynamic systems and of course too little power won't effectively traverse it. Again I could go into how I think this manifests on our perceptual level as in life satisfaction with relation to income, work and exercise habits and such but I believe I've already covered it enough for now.
Anyway, to bring this back around to the initial observation and to a more grounded (heh, after editing, not sure one can say that because without context of being in my mind, I wonder if I'm making sense to anyone) level, I think humanity's conflicts arise from differences or indifferences of power and power principles thereof. We are all using powers which we're beholden to to traverse this world. These won't be the exact same powers as everyone else to the exact degrees. What you lack, someone else may have and this can cause an attractive affect or repulsive, depending on conditions, opposites may attract, as they say. Sometimes you may have very similar powers, maybe manifested as genetic traits, as someone else and this too can cause opposing affects depending on conditions. These power nodes that compose you will inevitably go on to interact with other power nodes (individuals) and whether these mesh or not decides what greater power nodes or tribes we associate with. Certain tribes may then also have an attractive or repulsive effect to other greater power nodes. And summarily we have this system of power nodes made up of power nodes made up of... turtles all the way down perhaps, of which certain nodes attract or repulse certain nodes to exchange or nullify the power. This principle of power principles I view as far more elegant than other moral principles that try to encompass so much of life. It's far more understandable at an intuitive level as we all do it and use it from birth, it's something gods(heh)-given. It works no matter the motive, one can be selfish or altruistic and things just naturally fall into place as they do currently in society which I'd argue still operates in a mostly secular way. When you're altruistic, you're rewarded and when you're selfish, you're not, generally; same as most religious and societal views. Some religions have to make up an afterlife to account for the jankiness of their rules, like a sliding puzzle where one wrong piece out of place causes you to have to move other pieces. Sure, like an ongoing mathematical equation, I'll concede that part of us still plays a part in the overall equation after our number is processed or after the body dies but it doesn't require belief in the supernatural to host this belief. But to deal with the jank of religious rules and superstitions which don't quite fit the real world they often have to make up a workaround such as an afterlife punishment/reward scenario but when assuming the world just operates on power principles, that's it, thems the rules, elegant ain't it?
So what about justice? Well, when someone commits a travesty we can take into account power issues, which is what these issues inherently are. Too much power or activity, or lack thereof, in certain regions of the brain can cause disorders manifested as criminal actions. If we account for those things, perhaps medically approach the problem and/or keep the person away from society when they can't control themselves or perhaps we might use various other moderating means but that's beside the point, then justice is served. There's no need to virtually assign them perpetuity in a world of torment when their world may already be full of torment inside; who torments who isn't already tormented by a need to torment? And on the opposing end, if someone feels that a crime is such a travesty that even death isn't enough then the problem can additionally harm the sufferer and so perhaps the sufferer needs treatment and is also imbalanced against optimal survival potential. Perhaps they too may have a power imbalance in emotional centers of the brain such as the amygdala and pre-frontal cortext which causes them such anguish that they too may cause a crime in response; in both said individual cases there is an imbalance of power. The point is the name of the game is balancing these powers to effectively direct society in an enduring way, to mediate as to maintain a moderately stable society which would nurture enough chaos to provoke change and advancement yet still maintain a settled reserve as a backdrop. And to be intellectually honest, because I know no more in the end than anyone else, I realize the fallibilities of these views also. You could argue that what I may view as an imbalanced direction, ideological, moral, philosophical or otherwise, that perhaps it may be needed at some points to right ourselves and I can't argue with that. What I'd rather endorse here is that this worldview would have a more beneficial effect than much of religion. It's not perfect but it is as open-source code, its ugliness is out in the open as we don't have to hide our ugliness, it's taken into account and expected pretty much like Game Theory. The notion that we're just nodes of power in a network exchanging power (data); it's a short, simple, elegant concept or code that can be processed or interpreted on-the-fly with very little overhead.
Let's see a real-world example of it and place ourselves in a fantasy forest among tribal natives who worship a god named Abungoo and believe in a religion called WampaChampa (sounds like a pacman religion I can get behind) with a big lavish backstory dating back supposedly millenia which covers all manner of social life including customs, dress, etc.who worship the god Abungoo. Suppose their tribal chief told me to dance and I refused because I dance like Ian Curtis and thought they'd laugh at me. Of course the reason you get punished for not dancing when chief tells you to dance according to WampaChampa is that Abungoo told everyone to give unto chief with a whole lavish backstory involving why you should give unto chief and the consequences for not doing so. But in power speak, I subverted or destabilized his power and to re-balance it I need to submit and give back in some form or if I have some sort of power to overtake his power, I could do so, keeping in mind that he may have the entire tribe behind him so I may not have power to take his power while keeping balance and of course when power balance is lost, power nodes can be lost so say hello to Abungoo and the volcano you'll be thrown into. In other words, don't upset the balance any more than you can balance. This is the basis for modern religion, so I'd think to some extent as well as some theologians, that religion is meant as a stabilizing force in society, only baggaged with millenia-old code meant for legacy devices, needless backstory (excess anecdotes to cover its less intuitive nature), obvious contradictions in logic (not really my knock against it as I'd argue life itself is inherently contradictory; see following paragraphs) and of course antiquated middle-eastern language and customs of which aren't my heritage and so to fully learn it or engulf oneself in it, some would argue you'd also have to apply those to your life to some extent because 'oh, that might be a mistranslation, learn Hebrew' or 'that might be a metaphor, read verse ______ as well as verse _______ while standing on your toes to get proper context', thereby reinforcing the added baggage argument.
Anyway, what else are you missing from this view that you get from religion? Is it the community or 'feeling good' part? That same feeling you might get in your religious house of preference while synchronizing with others, it also comes with the secular synchronicity of being in harmony with nature or singing and conversing with others, that feeling of being synchronized with the universe on many other levels. Sometimes you can't feel it but you know it's coming. Like when working on a problem or working out, for instance, you feel the chaos within tearing away at you, the many branches of direction in which the distractions may be enticing you to go but you know there's very few routes or only one which leads to the optimal course. You keep pounding away at it going through all these diverted routes, these may be the pain and chaos associated with the problem solving be it physical or mental, but you know in the end if you get through that they all will beautifully converge on the path you're seeking and once you get there it's a great feeling. I'd classify this as a spiritual feeling or on the same spectrum even when it's more subdued. Of course being in that problem-solving phase may not feel good and it's also why I concede that I think feeling good is over-rated; here's a relevant study I read recently. If you're always feeling good, you're not trying or as they say, if you're not straining, you're not training. So keep in mind just because you don't feel good doesn't necessarily mean you're not on the path of goodness, or what I'd define as an optimal path for the self and society. Of course I'm a determinist so that always throws a kink in notions of 'what ought to be' just as one dealing with predestination in theology.
Ok, so what was I saying about us all being power nodes vying for more power? Yeah, no one's immune and you could just as well narrow down my endorsement here as just a node vying for power from other nodes. Such is the contradictory nature of life. Everyone's a hypocrite, well, according to English but it's ok, it's not a fault of ours, only of language to deal with these nuances. But we like to think we're one integral unit, comprising of integrity, and that there's no internal clashes within ourselves or without sometimes. But I'd say that's the ego interfering and that within us all are internal clashes, clashes of the biological and ideological. In fact it'd be worrying if we didn't have these internal clashes. Forces from without continually work to compromise you and eventually clash within you; it's universal, it's indicative of entropy working from within and without. These internal clashes prolong our lives, to a certain extent, most of which may be exemplified in pain signals and indicate a growth or strengthening. When we're confused when learning new things, we're endorsing neurological plasticity and on the macro, we're strengthening our survival potential. So I try not to fault anyone for being a hypocrite too much or for changing because to deny someone the ability to change or to be contrarian to oneself is to deny them life. I just wished we had a better term for it but the more I've debated, or "argued" would be a more apt term because it's not always so elegant, online the more I've realized that speech is so indescriptive of our conditions like mathematicians may say of describing QM in language as it's too abstract and only maths can convey it purely. Sometimes I wish it were more valid to just say "I don't like it" or a more descriptive, "it runs counter to my course in life and those of loved ones so I don't approve", but society values intelligence somewhat and in being able to articulate thought. So you can't really score any big social points without practicing such intracacies and as such language has evolved many meaningless terms as filler for our manifestations of social offense and defense. I feel like with language sometimes we're trying to pound a screw in with a hammer. Sometimes it works but not in the way it should. And being a selective mute for a lot of my life, my thought is more practiced in purely thinking to myself. When you have to wrap up your thoughts in a compatibility layer, not just that but they're inherently compressed also when we have to assign petty words to complex thoughts, a lot becomes lost in all these communication layers, higher attenuation, the signal-to-noise ratio is decreased. Added to this is the tax you have to pay when thoughts are slowed to keep up with articulating those thoughts. Again, being a selective mute made me realize just how much I have to slow down my thought process when being taxed by the communicative process and when I have to slow down I lose track easily, just as with music. I sometimes have this nice tune in my head but when trying to relay that to an instrument, things fail, because for one I can barely play guitar and for another, the path I accidentally created, or note, leads me onto other paths and I get distracted by those and wonder if those accidental notes might help here and here (oh, what would this sound like mixed with this...), and from there I find new paths or notes and wonder how they'll play or interact with this other thing and before I know it, I've branched off my main path and I've encountered a halting problem. So regular analog human communication is by its nature linear and I just don't think that way; I'm greatly taxed with verbalization as we all are to different degrees.
To end here, I just have to say please pardon my usual 'paragraphs are another word for pages' writing style. Some of the paragraphs were long notes I jotted down at various times between last entry and this one. Usually they're just bits and pieces of thngs I may feel I need to get off my chest so no, it's not just that I'm mentally disorganized, I'm that too, but it's also intentional. I wish I could just write blog posts that elegantly merge from one topic to another and encompass some beautiful theme like a concept album but my paragraphs especially here are more like songs to be taken as they are, not as part of a whole necessarily.
Note to self: don't rely so much on "truth" and instead rely more on parsing and processing all manner of power. If I were an RPG character, most of my character attribute points would be invested in curiosity or truth-seeking of some sort, intentionally or not. I have more curiosity than intelligence so it likely spills over into stupidity sometimes; I get short-sighted into seeking some ultimate intellectual truth regardless of optics or direct consequences. But beholding objective truth is a mere power among many and doesn't always garner priority in the social domain. Case in point, suppose a famous well-liked person passes away and in a comment section on a news site someone mentions a fairly benign negative mannerism or about a certain physical trait. Then someone comments with a highly upvoted reply on how they're not wrong, they're just an asshole. In that case, the power of the social supercedes the power of truth, even if it is an objective truth in the case of physical traits. In another opposite instance when the empathetic person and "asshole" are switched, suppose you have a commenter who mentions a positive and objectively true trait about a country we aren't on good terms with. Someone may then reply to that commenter on how they're not wrong, they're just a bot, shill, etc and perhaps that reply is more upvoted than the parent. In both cases the objective statements, or more specifically the beholder of those statements, may hold less power than the powers of the opposing social machine because the social machine may have objective statements of their own and in more numbers, numbers in this case being more hosts of those opposing objective truths. Power in the sense meaning more numerous, not necessarily other ways. So I'd just like to admit that in my pigeon-holed autistic-type manner of traversing this world, I sometimes lose track of the forest for the trees. We can't always disregard the power of numbers, the number of people hosting a view, ideology and such over other numbers such as what we may view as objective truths that may have more axiomatic data behind it because we should be reminded that science is a power-based system, it is also of and beholden to power laws. The more times we can repeat an experiment and it be true, the more powerful it is. The more axioms of data we have, the more powerful a theory becomes. It was and is a tool man created to traverse this world, to survive. Survival at some point may come to disregarding, at least momentarily and conveniently, certain objective truths in favor of working with temporary truths. For instance, you're in England in the Middle Ages and your head is on the chopping block unless you admit belief in Yahweh or kneel to the queen, what do you do? I think if one were reasonable and rational here, they'd admit temporary defeat in favor of survival and you live to fight the battle another day should you keep pursuing that battle. Perhaps you altruistically think you're doing a favor for humanity in the longrun but there will be no longrun should you not concede at least momentarily.
I must also remember that logic only goes so far. Sometimes I run many thought experiments as me from yesteryear, present me and every such me I can imagine in a sort of VM (virtual machine) though often to no avail because in the end I knowingly still run into the halting problem. You can't logically surmise these things without arriving there at some point and so in the end we sometimes have to resign ourselves to our mortal feelings or as Nietzsche might call our 'will to power'. In other words, using more familiar computer terminology, in all logical dimensions there is a dead end of processing when the main process thread relies on the input of other branched threads that are halted from lack of time/data to return to the main thread with relevant data because branch threads may be waiting on input from other branched threads and the more branched threads you have that rely on returned data from other branched threads, the higher chance of approaching a halting issue on the main thread in a logical processing facility, be it a computer or a mind. In other words, exponentially more time and power are required to traverse more time and power (data). Again, I see this tying into the Champion's Paradox or Einstein's mass-energy equivalence but it would take a greater mind than my own to make anything mathematically elegant of it. Conversely of course running the machine on just a will is also a dead end as it'll quickly degrade into degeneracy without being tempered by a ruleset so in the end you have to run the program with a moderate mix of logic as a sense mechanism and will as a driver mechanism or you might also say a good mix of order with amount of chaos, a software fuzzer, to feel or scan for unknown but perhaps relevant branches. Undriven logic goes nowhere while untempered will manifested as excess anger, sadness, happiness (if happiness is satisfaction, nothing will get done and I might even say life definitely has a bias towards dissatisfaction) and such go everywhere and so driving power is quickly diluted. Time and space being one, with excess power, time has to decrease to make up for inversely increasing space or power, something has to give and so excess power in a static system renders excess deviation from the static path as shown in electrical, radio, audio and other thermodynamic systems and of course too little power won't effectively traverse it. Again I could go into how I think this manifests on our perceptual level as in life satisfaction with relation to income, work and exercise habits and such but I believe I've already covered it enough for now.
Anyway, to bring this back around to the initial observation and to a more grounded (heh, after editing, not sure one can say that because without context of being in my mind, I wonder if I'm making sense to anyone) level, I think humanity's conflicts arise from differences or indifferences of power and power principles thereof. We are all using powers which we're beholden to to traverse this world. These won't be the exact same powers as everyone else to the exact degrees. What you lack, someone else may have and this can cause an attractive affect or repulsive, depending on conditions, opposites may attract, as they say. Sometimes you may have very similar powers, maybe manifested as genetic traits, as someone else and this too can cause opposing affects depending on conditions. These power nodes that compose you will inevitably go on to interact with other power nodes (individuals) and whether these mesh or not decides what greater power nodes or tribes we associate with. Certain tribes may then also have an attractive or repulsive effect to other greater power nodes. And summarily we have this system of power nodes made up of power nodes made up of... turtles all the way down perhaps, of which certain nodes attract or repulse certain nodes to exchange or nullify the power. This principle of power principles I view as far more elegant than other moral principles that try to encompass so much of life. It's far more understandable at an intuitive level as we all do it and use it from birth, it's something gods(heh)-given. It works no matter the motive, one can be selfish or altruistic and things just naturally fall into place as they do currently in society which I'd argue still operates in a mostly secular way. When you're altruistic, you're rewarded and when you're selfish, you're not, generally; same as most religious and societal views. Some religions have to make up an afterlife to account for the jankiness of their rules, like a sliding puzzle where one wrong piece out of place causes you to have to move other pieces. Sure, like an ongoing mathematical equation, I'll concede that part of us still plays a part in the overall equation after our number is processed or after the body dies but it doesn't require belief in the supernatural to host this belief. But to deal with the jank of religious rules and superstitions which don't quite fit the real world they often have to make up a workaround such as an afterlife punishment/reward scenario but when assuming the world just operates on power principles, that's it, thems the rules, elegant ain't it?
So what about justice? Well, when someone commits a travesty we can take into account power issues, which is what these issues inherently are. Too much power or activity, or lack thereof, in certain regions of the brain can cause disorders manifested as criminal actions. If we account for those things, perhaps medically approach the problem and/or keep the person away from society when they can't control themselves or perhaps we might use various other moderating means but that's beside the point, then justice is served. There's no need to virtually assign them perpetuity in a world of torment when their world may already be full of torment inside; who torments who isn't already tormented by a need to torment? And on the opposing end, if someone feels that a crime is such a travesty that even death isn't enough then the problem can additionally harm the sufferer and so perhaps the sufferer needs treatment and is also imbalanced against optimal survival potential. Perhaps they too may have a power imbalance in emotional centers of the brain such as the amygdala and pre-frontal cortext which causes them such anguish that they too may cause a crime in response; in both said individual cases there is an imbalance of power. The point is the name of the game is balancing these powers to effectively direct society in an enduring way, to mediate as to maintain a moderately stable society which would nurture enough chaos to provoke change and advancement yet still maintain a settled reserve as a backdrop. And to be intellectually honest, because I know no more in the end than anyone else, I realize the fallibilities of these views also. You could argue that what I may view as an imbalanced direction, ideological, moral, philosophical or otherwise, that perhaps it may be needed at some points to right ourselves and I can't argue with that. What I'd rather endorse here is that this worldview would have a more beneficial effect than much of religion. It's not perfect but it is as open-source code, its ugliness is out in the open as we don't have to hide our ugliness, it's taken into account and expected pretty much like Game Theory. The notion that we're just nodes of power in a network exchanging power (data); it's a short, simple, elegant concept or code that can be processed or interpreted on-the-fly with very little overhead.
Let's see a real-world example of it and place ourselves in a fantasy forest among tribal natives who worship a god named Abungoo and believe in a religion called WampaChampa (sounds like a pacman religion I can get behind) with a big lavish backstory dating back supposedly millenia which covers all manner of social life including customs, dress, etc.who worship the god Abungoo. Suppose their tribal chief told me to dance and I refused because I dance like Ian Curtis and thought they'd laugh at me. Of course the reason you get punished for not dancing when chief tells you to dance according to WampaChampa is that Abungoo told everyone to give unto chief with a whole lavish backstory involving why you should give unto chief and the consequences for not doing so. But in power speak, I subverted or destabilized his power and to re-balance it I need to submit and give back in some form or if I have some sort of power to overtake his power, I could do so, keeping in mind that he may have the entire tribe behind him so I may not have power to take his power while keeping balance and of course when power balance is lost, power nodes can be lost so say hello to Abungoo and the volcano you'll be thrown into. In other words, don't upset the balance any more than you can balance. This is the basis for modern religion, so I'd think to some extent as well as some theologians, that religion is meant as a stabilizing force in society, only baggaged with millenia-old code meant for legacy devices, needless backstory (excess anecdotes to cover its less intuitive nature), obvious contradictions in logic (not really my knock against it as I'd argue life itself is inherently contradictory; see following paragraphs) and of course antiquated middle-eastern language and customs of which aren't my heritage and so to fully learn it or engulf oneself in it, some would argue you'd also have to apply those to your life to some extent because 'oh, that might be a mistranslation, learn Hebrew' or 'that might be a metaphor, read verse ______ as well as verse _______ while standing on your toes to get proper context', thereby reinforcing the added baggage argument.
Anyway, what else are you missing from this view that you get from religion? Is it the community or 'feeling good' part? That same feeling you might get in your religious house of preference while synchronizing with others, it also comes with the secular synchronicity of being in harmony with nature or singing and conversing with others, that feeling of being synchronized with the universe on many other levels. Sometimes you can't feel it but you know it's coming. Like when working on a problem or working out, for instance, you feel the chaos within tearing away at you, the many branches of direction in which the distractions may be enticing you to go but you know there's very few routes or only one which leads to the optimal course. You keep pounding away at it going through all these diverted routes, these may be the pain and chaos associated with the problem solving be it physical or mental, but you know in the end if you get through that they all will beautifully converge on the path you're seeking and once you get there it's a great feeling. I'd classify this as a spiritual feeling or on the same spectrum even when it's more subdued. Of course being in that problem-solving phase may not feel good and it's also why I concede that I think feeling good is over-rated; here's a relevant study I read recently. If you're always feeling good, you're not trying or as they say, if you're not straining, you're not training. So keep in mind just because you don't feel good doesn't necessarily mean you're not on the path of goodness, or what I'd define as an optimal path for the self and society. Of course I'm a determinist so that always throws a kink in notions of 'what ought to be' just as one dealing with predestination in theology.
Ok, so what was I saying about us all being power nodes vying for more power? Yeah, no one's immune and you could just as well narrow down my endorsement here as just a node vying for power from other nodes. Such is the contradictory nature of life. Everyone's a hypocrite, well, according to English but it's ok, it's not a fault of ours, only of language to deal with these nuances. But we like to think we're one integral unit, comprising of integrity, and that there's no internal clashes within ourselves or without sometimes. But I'd say that's the ego interfering and that within us all are internal clashes, clashes of the biological and ideological. In fact it'd be worrying if we didn't have these internal clashes. Forces from without continually work to compromise you and eventually clash within you; it's universal, it's indicative of entropy working from within and without. These internal clashes prolong our lives, to a certain extent, most of which may be exemplified in pain signals and indicate a growth or strengthening. When we're confused when learning new things, we're endorsing neurological plasticity and on the macro, we're strengthening our survival potential. So I try not to fault anyone for being a hypocrite too much or for changing because to deny someone the ability to change or to be contrarian to oneself is to deny them life. I just wished we had a better term for it but the more I've debated, or "argued" would be a more apt term because it's not always so elegant, online the more I've realized that speech is so indescriptive of our conditions like mathematicians may say of describing QM in language as it's too abstract and only maths can convey it purely. Sometimes I wish it were more valid to just say "I don't like it" or a more descriptive, "it runs counter to my course in life and those of loved ones so I don't approve", but society values intelligence somewhat and in being able to articulate thought. So you can't really score any big social points without practicing such intracacies and as such language has evolved many meaningless terms as filler for our manifestations of social offense and defense. I feel like with language sometimes we're trying to pound a screw in with a hammer. Sometimes it works but not in the way it should. And being a selective mute for a lot of my life, my thought is more practiced in purely thinking to myself. When you have to wrap up your thoughts in a compatibility layer, not just that but they're inherently compressed also when we have to assign petty words to complex thoughts, a lot becomes lost in all these communication layers, higher attenuation, the signal-to-noise ratio is decreased. Added to this is the tax you have to pay when thoughts are slowed to keep up with articulating those thoughts. Again, being a selective mute made me realize just how much I have to slow down my thought process when being taxed by the communicative process and when I have to slow down I lose track easily, just as with music. I sometimes have this nice tune in my head but when trying to relay that to an instrument, things fail, because for one I can barely play guitar and for another, the path I accidentally created, or note, leads me onto other paths and I get distracted by those and wonder if those accidental notes might help here and here (oh, what would this sound like mixed with this...), and from there I find new paths or notes and wonder how they'll play or interact with this other thing and before I know it, I've branched off my main path and I've encountered a halting problem. So regular analog human communication is by its nature linear and I just don't think that way; I'm greatly taxed with verbalization as we all are to different degrees.
To end here, I just have to say please pardon my usual 'paragraphs are another word for pages' writing style. Some of the paragraphs were long notes I jotted down at various times between last entry and this one. Usually they're just bits and pieces of thngs I may feel I need to get off my chest so no, it's not just that I'm mentally disorganized, I'm that too, but it's also intentional. I wish I could just write blog posts that elegantly merge from one topic to another and encompass some beautiful theme like a concept album but my paragraphs especially here are more like songs to be taken as they are, not as part of a whole necessarily.
Comments
Post a Comment