More Distinctions

Between avoidance and denial there lies the distance.
The distance is just that: between someone who would rather not think something but still does, and someone who would rather not think something and so doesn't.
The difference between rather not thinking something and rather thinking something else.
One teaspoon experience of thought being too much.
One teaspoon experience of thought being transmuted.
Perversion of something that never existed in the first place.
The relationship with something someone does not want.
The relationship with something someone does not think.
Not thinking does not mean that a relationship does not exist.

Be Real

Blue duck tape where no one will look
It's in the same place as old gum
Which in turn is in the place of boogers

Close-up when there are no pictures
The lull of becoming interested in image
Skateboards require what I have

Only when you lose everything...
Is it never or is it now
There is no zoom on this lens

The camera with greatly detailed pixels
We can only see from the inside
We are blind men being guided by a dog

Hide-and-go-seek
Tag, you're it
If it weren't for an initial delay
It would change instantaneously

Heads down thumbs up
Don't express your excitement
We'll have to do it all over again

An apple falls far from the tree
Out of key melodies can still be heard
The edge is further out for me

Garbage scooping spear
If I would I could
Blatant disregard

Loopholes and black holes
Your 2nd dimension is no match for
My hands....SPIDER

Space Mountain

Space Mountain is the best ride at Disneyland, and the first attraction I decided to experience. It would end up being a horrible start to the nightmare that is Disneyland at age 20.
ME: "I heard a rumor, that Red Hot Chili Peppers did the score for this attraction?"
ATTENDANT: "Oh, that was last year, we went back to the original music."
ME (ASIDE): "Listening to the opinion of the masses will get you in trouble with me."
My great friends from rehab left me in the dust so I had to run up the walkway, around the fat people who waddle like penguins, but still seem to find the will to return to Disneyland all the time. It's as if they feel more comfortable wallowing in their indulgences when everyone else is doing it. Not as if, it's a certainty. If anything is certain it is that fat parents create fat kids. Apples only fall (relatively) far from the tree if the tree is small (in a metaphorical and literal sense).
We enter the control room and on the main screen is a camera shot spinning in space, so that the stars become more dizzying than clear. Throw in a few planet shots to show contrast and you've got yourself something! It's not planet Earth but its round and floating in space.
We load in the "rocket," a name I had found out only due to dreadful circumstances, and leave the docking bay. Ten feet away from the launching pad we stop. The controller sitting at her computer turns on the microphone and announces over the loudspeaker that there is a problem with the ride. The entire time we are stuck I am watching a party slowly develop in the control room.
The party, composed of firemen (the generic emergency response team), line mediators, and the people who say "thank you for riding Space Mountain enjoy the rest of your day," has filled the room to the brim, and must make room for more, or so it seems. Their being behind a pane of glass doesn't keep me from noticing that there are very serious glances being shared between the operators. They must have encountered this before, but at the same time look like they are doing their best. Sometimes trying to look like you're doing your best can cause panic among a populace, if they infer that you are not in control.
The situation at hand did not scare me, what scared me was the relationship between me and the people in charge. If this experience ends up having significance in my life, or will be repeated, it will be when the doctors are examining me and realizing there is no help to be given. I will see them walk into the other room, and get up from my bed and look through the keyhole and listen with my best ears, wanting to know anything, no matter how horrible. I must prepare myself before experiencing something. Knowing the Boy Scouts motto is a good thing, not overkill. Knowing that no matter what I do there is nothing I can change here gives me the overwhelming feeling to change that which I can.
Hushed glances, a chance to be in power
The more seriously you take me...
Panic is in a reciprocal relationship with relief
Not as always, but one cannot be without the other
Walking down the hall, I'd rather be you
You're the one to deliver the bad news?
No one expects anything of you
Responsibility is reliance
You're with me in the separation
The similarities breed certainty
Essential lack can be shared

Kafka

Paraphrase:
Everyone wanted what Alexander the Great wanted, none can provide it nowadays. Use of the sword to provide that which already exists (outside their reach.) Stakes are so high nowadays that, "no one shows direction." You lack followers because your cause lacks purpose.
Text:
"Strip his clothes off, then he'll heal us,
If he doesn't strike him dead.
He's only a doctor, a doctor after all."
Analysis:
What use are you if you can't even do your job? The reliance! The assumptions! The demands! Though the job is very hard, the assumption is that if the purpose of your life is to do something, you ought to be perfect at it. Nothing is perceived as being outside human reach. Our perceptions perfectly fit our capabilities. The assumption is that so long as you can be employed, you can succeed. I can do my (easy) job, yet you can't do your (hard) job? It makes no sense, and this isn't even factoring in the relativity of a given illness. When humans are forced to deal with something hard, like illness, their tendency is to blame. When worms are to blame, it is much more senseless than when another human may be blamed. Humans would rather be resentful than think life is senseless. When you think, wow, it is not our weakness which is to blame, but the strength of outside forces, your mind knows how hard it is to adapt. The threat in the above poem is a way for those who feel powerless in the face of a doctor to express themselves. No one is going to kill anyone, but if we threaten something then he will take us seriously, knowing that we don't mean what we say, but we mean more than we could say but not do. As if there is any difference: the doctor tries his hardest no matter what! This is powerlessness at its core: everything from success to difficulty to purpose to the unknown to dependability to responsibility changes towards the tipping point of employment. This is where all these elements meld into one. Under the heading of employment, all jobs are done to satisfaction (guaranteed) and no jobs are left without workers. Therefore, the capitalist system tries to provide us with everything we could possibly need or imagine, but this still leaves out that which it fails to provide. In the capitalist system, the ideal of pure satisfaction of all needs and desires is believed in, or at least bought into, by the vast majority of mankind. It fundamentally comes down to the belief that there is no viable alternative to this system, which, although imperfect, continues to reach toward its unattainable goal every day. Peoples desires have been transformed by capitalism to such a degree that this change will only come through a type of renunciation.

Coke Babies

easy answers easy questions
auto bahns in germany
you are a statistic
trust THAT
TV inspires that part in me

Someone else is going to come and clean it up
Oppositional resistance is compensating
Don't worry
Special relativity could only be discovered by Einstein

Think about it
Your ways of unknown expression
Are more cherished
Than everything you've done

Youthful aspirations
Maybe I will someday figure out everything
Maybe someday someone will figure out everything
Probably not

Once we're out of here
Someone once told me
If you don't meet up there
Again is an inevitability

Reverse Psychology

We all know that compassion is the basis of understanding. Reverse psychology is an attempt, based on this principle, to make a claim for the crown of most deep understanding of the other. However, this is not necessarily the case: if you use reverse psychology in the wrong context it loses its validity. Reverse psychology is based on a faith and/or compensation: that we are indeed looking at the same thing and/or we are going to agree to agree. It is more the promotion of an attitude than an accurate representation of necessary similarity. It is an idea based on the good of progress when compared to the harsh under achievement of reality. Reverse psychology begs us to focus on what we share rather than that which makes us different. This leads to both the ignoring of uniqueness but also the possibility that that which makes someone else unique can be shared. Either way, uniqueness loses its singularity so it can move on to bigger and better things. Does uniqueness lose value or gain value when it hits the market? The market says it gains value. What is the point of uniqueness if it cannot be learned by others? Uniqueness of spirit is often simplified, as uniqueness is a sign of some internal inspiration. How can one be taught to think for themselves? Is not uniqueness something which was always known, something which we feel as part of our soul? That essential separation we have with those around us cannot be reduced, it is a matter of looking somewhere else. Simplification seems to me to be an friend of similarity and a foe of uniqueness. In a sea of similarity, it is sometimes the difference which can tell us more than anything, for it changes the nature of the entire landscape from an internal perspective. For those who dedicate themselves to the existence of others: you must believe that in understanding others you understand yourself. It is true that such an existence will allow you to see things you would never get from yourself, but the mentality must be maintained that it is the trading and exchange process which is valued rather than the submissive properties of certain relationships. What can pull people apart the most? How about the difference between people who will fight for what they believe in and those who submit. None of us have immunity: everyone is at risk. For those who would rather live in a foolish consistency: you will never understand what it is to see the unknown. What makes people most different is that which opposes the impulse of the herd. What I'm trying to say is that life is a constant struggle for perfection. The eternal is a goal rather than a reality, though some have mistaken it for such. What is of really lasting value seem to be the things which the most people agree on, but one must realize that such things will someday be replaced. To think that the greatest of us (i.e. Kurt Cobain) would think so lowly of themselves suggests two things to me: that they felt like they could prove to be more influential when gone, or that our existences are much less significant than they seem. It mirrors our reality: we are so much more complex than the stars, yet we are under their command. The evil man is he who lives an existence of the stars when given the opportunity for something greater. It can be tempting to live according the the easily identifiable rules of lower life forms, but the truly great thing is when we find a way to live as humans. The real question is should we use the lower life forms as examples for our own purposes? I say no, for the understanding which evolution has provided us is strong enough. We know how to act like a dog better than a dog does, a theory which suggests that none of our unconscious has been erased or lost, it has simply been over-ridden. The sensation of erasure is totally different than that of being overrun. To erase one lives under the idea that their ideas are incompatible with another's (the existence of the lower forms of opposition). Much can go on here, but it is not the highest level. This is an existence based on the realities of the unconscious as opposed to the conscious. A higher life form would be one in which no ideas necessarily contradict one another, that we are all searching for the same thing as humans. Higher life forms would believe to themselves that they are individuals who create ideas not in opposition to other theories but as they see fit, if they even have the guts to think for themselves. Higher life forms sometimes can get so caught up in the actions of ego-less existence that no longer does the ego resist, a sad reality which most of us can identify with. One should do what one is best at, for the sake of others! Marx was the former, creating communism as an opposition to the oppressive systems of capitalism, while the latter cannot be represented by one figure because it is fundamentally an attitude of passivity and similarity. Sitting here in this room, the T.V. on but the sound off, makes me realize that life can be taken in bits and pieces, that to take the whole thing at once is something that is not only impossible, but something which can turn someone into an addictive personality type. I must say how susceptible I am to turning into a type. This is only attainable by a certain observational distance, in which all types are considered and only the most applicable chosen. Going into a supermarket, I am the fastest at getting my food, which means that every week I can get some Panda Express before I go shopping, a luxury not afforded to anyone else. Is it because I have an eating regiment, or I don't really care about what I eat? It's a bit of both, but my point here is that this was not always the case. My fast shopping habits went unrewarded for a while, proving that efficiency simply leaves space for more, without providing any of the entertainment. People who are bored have found a way to get through life without using up their time, but instead of being thankful for such fortune, they curse their fate. One must be open to new habits of behavior before one decides to become a more efficient human being, otherwise the intent does not fit the goal. One must have a goal in mind before they try and achieve it, purposeless intent can only be profitable over time, in which there evolves a purpose more closely related to the intent. But this is a rare finding and circumstance, for which some waste entire lives.

Learning to Distinguish

I am learning to distinguish between the unknowables: the perpetual and the ever-present. Sometimes a thing called denial can become attractive even to the inquiring mind. Usually it is through experiences of obligation, or feelings one gets regarding lifestyle changes that people, if not going the whole way to utter denial, then at least some level of compensation. It's a dangerous field, one in which the supposed experts on "pure-consciousness" must go through some level of denial to believe that they themselves have not compensated on some level. My point is that denial seems to spread or spill much like fear, but in a way that is less immediately noticeable. Fear is an experience which is intuitively known to be fundamentally wrong. Denial has all sorts of rationalizations associated with it, and one cannot believe that it is better to reduce the level of denial to a singularity of impulsiveness rather than to experience denial for what it is. My point is that denial must be dealt with not in a presumptive way regarding the inevitability of its existence but that it must be combated only as it appears. Dealing with denial in an attempt to reduce its existence across the entirety of your consciousness is futile: denial is too adaptable and too specific. Within denial is the microcosm of your mind: lacking its fullness of being but not in any way capable of fulfilling itself in any complete sense of the word. Life, in its experience of the grander ideals and universalized understanding, is only capable of doing a part. The illusion of oneness is a double-edged sword: it can make one capable of original generalizations, or it can seduce someone into a state of contentment which is a majority of life rather than the illusory wholeness of being. Even when we try to fit as much information into as small a space as possible, at what point do we compromise the true nature of the information being expressed? The answer of the inevitability of compromising is insufficient, and we must recognize that there is as yet no clear answer to such a question. What we tend to choose in terms of how hot to make hot sauce or how much THC should be in a type of weed often follows the logic of the more there is in a small amount of space as possible the better. Human nature opposes this type of existence, and would rather run at a comfortable equilibrium in which progress is measured by the way something enhances our existence. More and more, progress will be something which builds on itself. What can humans, the creators of technology, do to change such progress? The desire to stuff as much as possible into something as small as possible must be seen for what it is: a never-ending struggle which will never seem to get as much attention as it deserves. This applies to all of the problems of the world, with the exception of disease, for which we have cures. The irony of metaphysical purity, or emotional catharsis, is that by coming to terms with reality, we accept as ours all the things that oppose such pureness. Our pureness lies not only in the recognition of our weakness, but the changing of our attitudes. The initial impulse does not spill over here, when it would be desirable, and one must remember that once you start down the path there are forks in the road. One must learn that to part from one's creation involves saying goodbye to it, so for this posting I will say: you leave possibilities open but do not go into depth, you are too considerate of your readers, leaving the filling up to them, and finally, you lack direction.

Normal Conversation

Life is blurred by the finality of all that we say. Not to be improved upon? Rubbish! Life is blurred because it is in the fuzzy space that we harbor contentment and things of that nature which require hand-shaking success stories. I lost 15 pounds reading this blog, does that mean it should be read or that it's highly dangerous for your health? How long did it take? Life is blurred in the space of observation. Heisenberg is not a genius as much as the world is a beautiful place. Someone told me that beauty lies in fitting form and function. Well, I think, that is more unconscious than it is conscious. One wonders at such unknowns, and yet knows to oneself that contentment must be applicable to circumstances, for if you take everything without judgment you lose out on the act of conclusiveness. This conclusiveness is the kind of thing that brings us to reality, and it is in this act that we see real revolution. Revolutionaries of the future are ones who would rather bring us closer to the truth than discover something new. That which is new has no foundation, that which is new is shiny. We are raccoons digging through the trash for shiny metal, when suddenly a human comes at us with a flashy flashlight and suddenly the brightness signals something completely different. Run, but don't run in a manner which might signal any sort of aggression, somehow this is quite easy to transpose.

Talent

Well, I heard somewhere (I don't care to say how I got there) that "Biologists explaining the origins of intelligence largely concur that the most powerful amplifier of intelligence is sociality, especially in the need to infer what others of one's own species want and intend so that one can react and plan accordingly." To me, this is quite obvious, to the degree that others try to convince me that my self-deprecation/other-praise is unwarranted. I've always said the only reason I am smart is because I surrounded myself with intelligence. My question here is at what point is talent the factor of intelligence and at what point is it your surroundings. This can be seen as the nature vs. nurture debate. Now, if morality is the way of drawing lines, then it seems to me that the fate of morality lies in helping to answer these deep scientific questions. The lies moralists have told for the sake of expressing the deep human need to distinguish and categorize finally has a purpose. All this mental preparation has waited for this sort of nature vs. nurture debate. Now that the moralists have a context for which their tools can be used, they should be ecstatic. However, the vast majority of them have opposed scientific findings based on the fact that they cannot release themselves from their convictions. In the time in which their tools have the greatest use, they refuse to show them. As South Park has so keenly noted, Richard Dawkins treats science with a sacredness which can only be compared to religion. I think it is time that the great moral teachers of our time start realizing that science can use their help. In a question in which the great amounts of information being appropriated will simply complicate matters more, the capacity to take a large amount of information and weigh it pound for pound is highly valued. I guess what I'm trying to say is that moralists throughout the ages have had a capacity which is hard to understand, recreate, express, so as a result they have had to make up things like God to help them along. Most of the people who follow a morality do not really understand the thoughts behind it, but accept it because of the consequences, which themselves are just made up for the purpose of a morality. The point is, the lies moralists perpetuate are so obvious that the power of their ways of thinking must be great to be so convincing. If a moralist tells a lie, is it not up to another moralist to put him in his place? The great moralist, who uses scientific information to make generalized assertions, who no longer needs to use invented Gods but can use the theory of evolution, a power which has empirically proven itself to be much more powerful. Personally, it is quite obvious that I am not a moralist, I am highly unconvincing, and do everything within my power to indicate to those with whom I am conversing that I doubt, that "I have no idea what I'm talking about."

Stream of Consciousness

I may be too afraid to step to that level but I do have a lot of balls. When compared to those around me, with few exceptions, no one would write a blog. Those who do gain so much respect. Something about the difference between what blogs do for you over time and what the blogs do implicitly. Blogs always grant someone greater expressive skills. It is under this roof of greater expression that the rest comes. It's always a matter of admitting one's inadequacy. There are a few options: piercing through the veil of reality or else your problems gain complexity parallel to your solutions. It is not a matter of choice. It is a matter of truth. It is a matter of idealism, because this idealism exists even in the impulse for truth: never is this search pure, it needs the push from the source of aspiration. Self-consciousness. Lacking something when you know denial is the wrong way. Deja Vu is an identification of the need to amplify the feelings associated with something to pin-point the reason, but no matter how much you turn up the volume you never touch the thing you set out searching for. If you did, which is absurd, would the feeling of Deja Vu cease to have meaning or would Deja Vu suddenly become something permanently within your consciousness? Would everything you see (even if it was a new experience) have that bitter taste of being familiar? A point in which the past informing the present and future backfires. The interesting part about this point is that it has the feeling of eternity compacted into now. Endless repetition loses its punch after the first photograph, or does it? Doubt splits the singular into double, or is the double simply the first act of differentiation? The latter, the longer developed thought, the more likely option, is paradoxical in its validity. The pin-point: eternal time is glimpsed as a photograph in the past, maintaining its purity but leaving its existence as that of the other. How is it that we can perceive something which is not us? The needs of evolution never become obsolete: the best progression happens on all levels at once. The fractal's branching function loses our interest due to the changing of its color, or essential being. When given the option, the more desirable is the latter, but if the former gets neglected in any way-shape-form you can be sure that you will find us in the underground non-exclusively. One seems to expand itself endlessly, the other deals in the realm of self-knowledge: in which the Baroque folding allows potentialities for a needle and thread. One seems to work for the other. One seems to act terribly inefficiently. What is so important to note is that the unknown lies everywhere at once, within and without.

About Me

This?
This is just the revival
Of a survival
Something shown
Something unknown
Something compromised
Someone surprised
Inspiration lies to/in you
You who have seen it all
You who reserve the seats
In a coffee shop every night
Confusion of motives
You hear "Without caring for yourself
You cannot care for others."
There is one door in this shop
Anyone who's anyone
Desperate search for deconstructed meaning
A + B
Enough anything and something
Why?
Why does creation begin to have clear ends
"It buffs it up"
What else?
Creation as a process for itself
For that next time you create
Religious conclusions

Fragments III

Where did it come from? That starburst, which was seemingly packaged was actually just repackaged. Or not.

I know what it's like to have helpful suggestions become misconstrued as hatred.

You have been exposed, now nothing can compare.

You are not Sam, you are Sam's son. But my name is Sam: a denial of the opinion of everyone else to the degree that your own identity is lost, then found you're father.

HEY! Put these on it puts everything in 3D.

I was a popped zit last night, no one got it. Or, I should say, no one even noticed.