People and emotions.
by, 8th November 2008 at 01:40 AM (1673 Views)
I often think about people in a morbid, wistful, serious, and philosophical way. Not necessarily the outward presence and fronts people may maintain getting caught in the immediate moment as they indulge in temptations, but the underlying intent and sentiment behind their actions, who they are, their incentives, their thoughts, their instincts, their feelings, their social nature, and their worlds and how those worlds are defined.
More often than not, I think what separates us the most is not discrimination but something else - that as we partake humanity we live in our own worlds and our own worlds are so disconnected from everyone else's (seperation). As the days of "time" slip us by people seemed to be so encased and immersed in their own lives, being of their own devices, and keeping to their worlds that I don't think we do live in the same world so much as we live in our own worlds and transiently exit and enter one to the other's. In a sense I think we're less personalities and more icons in other people's eyes. An example - you may hear about the murder or death of a family, but that hasn't happened until you've bore witness or until you've heard about it. It hasn't come to fruition in your world - hence, it hasn't happened. Not for me, anyway. It's not that I have no regards towards the aforementioned family - I tend to be a kind and deeply caring person by nature (however pensive, earnest and wistful I am) despite that I do have a deeply negative side that tends to linger on the past, not being able to move on, to be brutally honest, that I seldom openly admit to. It's just hard to feel or imagine something happening until we achieve a connective aspect with that something.
Death leads me to discuss upon sentiments such as hate and love and reasons and instincts (the latter of which I find superstition to be linked to) and if the two are that separate, or if we just separate them in our attempt at gauging and discerning our nature and the more base (but not rudimentary) nature of life itself. It makes one contemplate, why hate something? Hate is a strong word to many, openly so. It alludes that one is willing to be without reluctance on many accounts (including reason which I, again, see to be subjective) - to go beyond the "gumption" of anger (but it depends on how you choose to define that) - to protect oneself from being hurt by an object of said hate - at all costs - just to do away with that subject of hate that causes such pain to even consider and acknowledge. But I'd say through that you end up hurting yourself the most. Hate is both a self-destructive force and something that won't be subdued until the victim of that hate is completely gone (flying into an awful ire). Forgotten, set asunder, whatever it takes. And that's a scary thing to ponder in my eyes.
What we call thus as "Earth" doesn't seem to hate us. There's no hate, in my eyes. Sure, natural disasters may recur on many an occasion - but that isn't hate so much as it is the Earth's way of cleansing (IMO). Love, on another side of that coin, is just as powerful - but rather than doing anything to achieve something, everything that can be done is done (and even beyond that). Love is beyond words (then again, all emotions are, as is the awesome outlet of music also falls into emotional power, which may be more a subconscious than conscious thing). Love isn't promiscuous, nor does love pander any denominator (IMO). It's a nurturing, unfathomably deep, and mutual connection between lovers. It isn't unrequited, either; to say it is is to say love isn't so.
Another discrepancy I see between hate and love is that hate is determined where as love is influenced. Hate tends to be fixed no matter the subject of circumstance whereas love is influential, offering a positive set of emotions with a display of wont for happiness as it may be. However, searching for that happiness does naught because it leads to forever-lasting relativity, self-satiation, and absolute power corrupting. Hence why searching for happiness kills it, and why wanting something is not the same as being and accepting (through my eyes). Both hate and love are most similar; they defy reason (however subjective I feel reason is) and both are unlimited. Both things ring of enough depth and intricacy not to be controlled but succumbed to by calling of a very deep and unbearably powerful motivation. Have you ever felt so strongly about something that that something is almost too great to bear loving or hating? I say that's what I mean - another power, whether seen to be good or bad, of love and hate (IMO). Both emotions also are largely influencing of not just yourself but others. When you hate or love, you end up turning it everywhere if submitted to long enough - even inward. In that way I'm of the impression that we're all connected and intuitive as cognitive beings constantly bounded between decisions amongst decisions as life draws on. We may not recollect every one paltry statistic/detail, but what we do recollect is how to do things.
And why is death so feared? Because it's a foreign thing? I'd say a healthy one who's grown, in a way, wouldn't fear death. Most seem to fear death without thinking about it in my quiet observation. It may be also feared because of insecurities. It might not be fearing death so much as the darkness, if it's such. But for all we know, the greatest adventure yet could yet await in death (I think). The process itself is amazingly drudging and painful, yet death itself may not be. We often link our families and friends to a source of trepidation when it comes to death without looking upon the notion that perhaps our families are less a product of one another and more something that comes through us unto itself as we grow ever nigher to all friends in love. But by another account, what lay beyond hate and love? Emotions that are beyond emotions (which within its own is a conundrum)? But all of this leads me to something that I said I'd touch upon earlier - instinct vs. reason, and if the two are that separate if at all.
Why do we do what we do? Why do we want to dominate each other in some way? Why do we live, and what do we live for? Loved ones? Interests? Because we can? Isn't instinct and reason involved in everything we do? Think about it, the two aren't all that different despite that they're professed to be such. Instinct is a part of reason and reason is a part of instinct. You couldn't separate the two even if you wanted to, to reference my favorite philosopher, Nietzsche. So why do we? To gain superiority in some way (however one may define superiority, as I feel superiority and inferiority are states of minds; ego isn't necessarily arrogance but the rudiments of choosing, along with pondering choice - whether people can be saved or just offered options and choices)? What if there is no reason or "essence" to anything? Or what if it's beyond reason and "essence"? Instinct? Or not? What if we just do things? (and ironically, doing something for no one special specified reason, however that's defined, makes practice a requisite)
People rely upon stature, reason, and a fixed "plan" to govern what they do. What will always defeat plans is what happens - because plans involve predictions of that which can only be gauged as it happens, blearing or not. That's their fatal flaw. Instinct and intuition may not be that disparaging a thing by contrast. And, for that matter, none of the above things may be autonomous. We separate them. Why do we separate anything? How are questions more imperative than answers? Why does separating something always entice us to break that separation one way to the other? Economics and morality (perhaps separate)? Why is it that smaller things wheedle us to move onto larger things when abusing something? Why is insight harder to grasp than violence? And to touch on something mentioned earlier, why do we dominate others? Why do we feel the need to control in some way? Or implore, even? When one ponders it, everyone has a will to power in some way (to once again quote Nietzsche). Philosophers, even. Priests (religion acting as something I see as less discerning the enigmas of life and more irrevocable faith...), scientists... doctors. Anyone. Whether in "authority" or not.
Domination and trying to prove superiority in some way by attacking others is also prevalent on message boards and the Internet and an omnipresent nature inherent in everything. Why? Is it that the more we are exposed to power, the more we are tempted to build upon that temptation until it ultimately ends up corrupting us? It also leads me to wonder why we laugh; why we consider things funny. Besides being an expression to convey amusement, what do we feel and why do we feel? Can you imagine living life without feeling, without color, without sensory? Would it even be life then or something else? It's rather wholly beyond us as much as we are above such.
And the will to power brings me to another thing - the idea that people are so convinced of what they think they know is "truth". "Fact". "Real". "False". "Illusion". "Time". "Evil". "Normal". "Myth". I think it's a rather worldly assumption to think anyone has absolute certainty of anything - hence the idea that nothing endures but change. As is any one notion of a word. Take names. They're less names of people and more things we only glance upon within our heads, on my view. But back to the main point, is something so irrevocably objective and not debatable just because it's in front of us and we can agree upon it? Anything can change. Or rather, what consensus can? I think the word "truth" stems not from the notion of trying to tell something how we "think" it "is" but trying to gain power. If we say we "achieve truth" and coerce others into thinking that, then... well, we can gain power over others because they think we're right about that something and we can use it to our advantages. I always felt "truth" and "morality" are things that we have too much certainty as to and they often only end up being as we wish it and state it, tantamount to being conveyed as what we make of it as far our certainty goes. To say something has a basis "in fact" no matter what is to say that life is dang hindered and that the same goes for change, in my eyes.
But I suppose I've rattled on long enough. So am I too verbose? Do I think too much? Too deeply, if such a phrase should be in your eyes? Leave your thoughts and rebuttals if you wish it, as I'm curious. Feel free to ponder away.
Total Trackbacks 0