Friday, May 27, 2011
who goes there
sometimes i find myself imagining that people did not exist, so i wouldnt have to deal with problems that bear me down. problems are after all, created by people, if not by the self then by others. so i imagine them disappearing, one by one, thousands by thousands, until only a handful of people are left walking this earth. how peaceful it would be, that no machines would make noises, only the rustling of trees in the cool morning breeze--not even the birds have come out of their nests yet. more importantly there would be no problems. it sure would be pretty lonely, not having anyone to talk to...but coming from me, it really wouldnt make a world of a difference. sp how much more terrible could it be if that last handful of people also disappeared? no humans...just me, grass, trees, birds and myself. i wouldnt make a very entertaining myself for me. i would just blog all day, or write on walls with chalk stone once the internet starts crashing. i would think to myself. i would talk to myself. then i would remember the times when i didnt have to...when i didnt have to deal with myself. i would realise the problems i create for myself are far worse than those created by others. i would realise that removing billions of people for me is just a very expensive way to achieve the same objective that removing myself instead would. yes, it is also more considerate that i remove myself, if only at least that others dont have to deal with my problems. there really is little need for my existence. i am but a small flame--spark even, that would not make the fire any less warm than if i was put out. why then do i exist? for whose benefit am i placed here, i wish to ask, as i have realised now that i am my self not interested in claiming it. who is in need of my existence?
Monday, May 02, 2011
on gray areas
gray
being gray is like being half-cooked, left or right where does one look?
sitting on the fence not wanting to plant our feet, a problem of all, poor and elite
when the boxes are given, we know not which from which
a choice we must make before the timely hour instead we spend on things that dont matter
so when its time to pull a switch theres barely a need, for we did not choose; we chose to be freed
from responsibility, run we must. but for freedom, in spontaneity we trust.
but those who chose they paid in full, seen as rigid... no takers of bull
lo when calamity strikes we look to them, we tear our clothes and hit the hem
they are rigid, no takers of bull, they are constant in push or pull
so being gray as good as good gets, is still a choice just dont regret.
~
Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
what am i
many people do not understand themselves, let alone the motives behind their words and actions. while it may seem very clear to them, while we consider that it is only natural for every man to think he knows himself best, surely not every man knows himself to the same degree.
now suppose a man chose to live in numbers instead of feelings, emotions and the unquantifiable, would not this logical, mathematical man be free of personal bias? less his preference for the impartial, would he be guilty of any other personal preference? he would be unswayable by argument as he would simply be a servant of numbers. while a normal man is conflicted by interests in himself, would not the logical man be the best judge of what is what?
how can we know best that a man is drunk? surely his own word weighs less than the word of the testing machine which has no personal interest. now if everything a man does or even does not do is measurable by an outsider, so would this outsider know of what is within the man. the act of understanding a man is reducible to a series of results from tests performed on his outward behavior, such that this new understanding of him would be more far more accurate (verifiable) than any statement he gives, even one of his own claims of self understanding.
there is one weakness to the methods of the analytical observer: that this observer knows only as much as the subject reveals, whether accidental or voluntary. yet because it is rare that a man cannot live without revealing his motives, the only man who can honestly claim that no one truly understands him, is a sociopath.
now suppose a man chose to live in numbers instead of feelings, emotions and the unquantifiable, would not this logical, mathematical man be free of personal bias? less his preference for the impartial, would he be guilty of any other personal preference? he would be unswayable by argument as he would simply be a servant of numbers. while a normal man is conflicted by interests in himself, would not the logical man be the best judge of what is what?
how can we know best that a man is drunk? surely his own word weighs less than the word of the testing machine which has no personal interest. now if everything a man does or even does not do is measurable by an outsider, so would this outsider know of what is within the man. the act of understanding a man is reducible to a series of results from tests performed on his outward behavior, such that this new understanding of him would be more far more accurate (verifiable) than any statement he gives, even one of his own claims of self understanding.
there is one weakness to the methods of the analytical observer: that this observer knows only as much as the subject reveals, whether accidental or voluntary. yet because it is rare that a man cannot live without revealing his motives, the only man who can honestly claim that no one truly understands him, is a sociopath.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
cut off
i almost forgot but i was reminded ..scenarios of conversations run through my head like an endless generator. i want it to stop but maybe i secretly don't. maybe it doesn't stop because i don't want it to stop. i don't want to know what to say or do. i just want to sleep. i don't want a solution. i don't want to hear any more conversations. i want silence. i want distraction. i need to rest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)