People We may (not) be.

This is a scripture of several individuals who I may or may not have been. While I can say with absolute earnestly that I never have been, let alone could have dreamed of possessing the capabilities of such persons. I will leave the distinction open toward and welcoming of all conspiring and doubt. It is not within me to welcome my detractors in any way other than with arms widely open. After all without them too whom would we respond?

It is to your interpretation alone reader, and no one else’s (and at the same time everyone else’s) where you fit as well as myself in this depicted development of anybody who would be anyone. I leave my position open to questioning and conspiracy not only as a challenge of perception, but as a challenge to the overall certainty of ones place within the not so grand playing field of existence.

Existence being little more than ones aspiration to play a role in the most immaculate of all comedies. A self contrived definition reflective of the understanding of all existing conflict as little if anything more than mere irony. With all due reason, could one define any idea for themselves without extracting a self contrived nature in the same action?

Only if they are the first to do so, or if they are so uncertain that they opt not to align themselves with the defense of their own declarations. I’ve never seen any point in aligning with ones own ideals, in fact I argue against my own beliefs more than anyone I know. By what other means (if any) could self depreciation be found profitable?

Suppose We may be correct in this assumption of the universe existing as a joke played upon itself. A joke who’s punchline we may or May not be reconciled with in the after life. A prank which may or may not exist at all. Knowing all well that if it should choose to exist that I must and will do so for no reason other than to have existed.

Not vanity but Beauty. For true beauty and irony really are no different. An observation that sets the dividing line between itself and vanity. Vanity being understood as a spiteful interpretation of perceived novelty. When the interpreter is for some reason or another unable to measure that which is novel he is lead to flip the coin onto its side and perceive it as a disgusting establishment of vanity even if and not surprisingly most often when the novelty is unaware of Its potential to be taken as a vanity.

All these premises are mischievously declared directly in spite of certainty. A self assuming depiction of How I dubiously enjoy spitting on those who cling to such a morally intangible form of (sub)conscious satisfaction. As if permanently silencing the mind entirely lent any advantage beyond numbing oneself from their own experience.

For the degenerate, the intellectual, the artist, inventor and philosopher alike (assuming one can be any of these things without being all) certainty and all Unipolar forms of reason for that matter are little more than a road block in the way of creativity, innovation, or all expansion of existing ironies along with all ability to deliver it.

This speaks to the deficit one acquires through blind faith in theology or the scientific method. However if one is to ascribe to both a spiritual and a scientific worldview simultaneously. Or neither. Than the contradictions of this dualism or the theoretical pot holes left by inaction will give way to the delight of inspirational fervor toward some sort of reconciliation of the two.

And what a delight it is gentleman to be inspired to the unification of seemingly contradictory ideals. This delight may seem naive, and while it certainly is naively perhaps even idiotically optimistic as is true to the nature of all joys and delights. Despite all posits of idiocy this sort of naivety is not only profitable but necessary as our would be fictional narrator will now demonstrate. How should we be expected to retain any genuine integrity throughout the course of our lifespan without an equivalent level of humility? The answer? We shouldn’t.

It is for this same reason gentleman that nobody may hold themself in a heightened regard without immediately looking down on themselves for doing so. The only way around this being self deception, which as we’re already so meticulously aware goes to show that ignorance is the only true bliss. This leaves us with the decision to choose between the blissful advantage of ignorance and the joyous excitement of perception.

Likewise no one may truly humble themselves to the point where they do not at any level of their consciousness take pride in being humble. Perhaps in spite of its disadvantage, this path of excitement may be preferable to some, and worthy of inspiring malice in those who did not choose it. Those who walk such a path become well aware of the malice it inspires in their counterpart, even if their counterpart does not let an ounce of spite through to the surface.

It is for this reason alone that we may not walk the path less traveled by without succumbing to a varying degree of superiority for doing so. Be there many a trickster who denounce any superiority in their individuality but these self-embracing fools are merely taking that superiority to an entire new level.

Humorous it is gentleman that in an attempt to denounce ones own authority that they merely extend the range of targets to which it is applicable. Thi s is because they are now attempting to posit their status as above both those who walk the path less traveled as well as those who don’t.

What we have as this product gentleman is a true blooded narcissist’s narcissist. The type who could kill a man and in the same breath strike his wife to the ground and be fully confident in the morality of it. That he not only considers this an advantage above the men he perceives to be of lesser importance, but as a primary virtue.

While living in stark contrast to a self deprecating and self defeating naive optimist such as myself they somehow spiritually resemble an almost disturbing likeness to one another. Perhaps the one thing these two have in common is their distance from those who walk the common path. Is it possible gentleman, that the anti-hero and the anti-villain are in fact equal opposites?

Certainly one could not exist without the other but does this make them tantamount? By all means it may and it may not, I am not the decider of this quandary. If you believe the world to be the perfect macrocosm of the conceptual zero sum game I suppose they would be perfectly tantamount.

However if you do not believe the net energy of the universe to be zero (as most men of direct action who have not yet been acquainted with any ageless wisdom do, along with the most positive and disgustingly naive of all optimists) than they could not be any more different.

While displaying a seemingly pessimistic view of things, it is precisely why I opt not to ascribe myself too it. Some would point to such a discrepancy and shout insanity. He should think himself perfectly justified as such a worldview is in direct opposition of sanity. It should seem as if all who opposed are condemning themselves to rot in a stalemate of their own construction, though this could not be further from the truth.

What has not been accounted for but many times assumed is that genius, like insanity is also in direct contrast of sanity. Genius and insanity are certainly not mutually exclusive but they are not equivalent either. what difference than stands between them? A genius uses madness as a tool to discover what reason has overlooked, to expand understanding to new lengths and to connect them and reconcile them with what was prior understood.

Insanity on the other hand uses madness as an ethical basis to argue against that which complies with reason. No one asks this of the madman, he is merely asserting his desire to comply with his own maddened perspective rather than reason. An agenda no different than he who sets out to start a bar fight with the laws of gravity.

Lord knows The genius has his fare share of these bar fights as well, the only difference being that one truly believes in its merit. The other merely seeking to ascertain what stake of new knowledge and experience may be claimed as a result. this is not to say that there is nobody standing in between these two positions, in fact most do. It is obscenely difficult to ascertain which one may be inhabiting or afflicting a persons consciousness, even more so for the one standing there.

In spite of all differences they are both certainly artists in the most genuine sense of the word. Albeit in their own respects. In spite of all implications one may be above above the other, we cannot be quick to overlook the madman’s place as perhaps the greatest inspiration of all genius. Not only inspiration but also its primary defense against the eyes and arms lined up in their fear inspired defense of all that is conventional and assumed to be understood prior.

I DARE any audacious outspoken readers to comment.

If you do not press subscribe as promptly as possible I swear by all that is vested within me that I will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT!


A ramble on Spiritual Happiness by D.L

Your happiness project

Spiritual happiness

Notice how everyone wants to be happy, it’s not just a coincidence. At least I don’t think so.! We all yearn to be happy, in some ways life is a happiness project, full of paradoxes. Example: it may seem like it’s all about you but it’s actually what you an do for others. Bringing happiness to others increases your chances of being happy, while seeking happiness for yourself decreases the chances .! We all do things in our life that we know will bring us a measure of misery afterwords. Example include momentarily pleasure or an adrenaline rush. But they all pass quickly. Leaving the original yearn for happiness is stronger than before.

The thing is our deep yearning isn’t for momentarily pleasure, it’s for lasting happiness. Paul the apostle has it. He continually wrote about joy in his letters from prison. It was the most common theme in his writings from the filth and squalor from within his prison cell. Could you be haply in his situation.? I don’t think I could’ve, if I’m being honest I’d probably get and depressed pretty quickly. I am right by your side in this journey with you, and still have work to do myself. I am also in the middle of my own happiness project,just like yours it has its ups and downs. amount authors there is a saying that goes something like. “ we write books we need to read” . So maybe I am writing this message you and I need to hear the most.

You have no doubt discovered your own truths about happiness. But there is one question ; ask yourself . Is it possible to be happier than you have ever been.? Think about it, don’t just read on. Pause for a moment . Reflect. Do you believe it is possible to be happier than you have ever been.? I believe it is. Real happiness is a sign that’s the human spirit is thriving. This is the thriving I yearn for and the thriving I suspect you are hungry for. We want to live life more fully ; we’re impatient to live life to the fullest. So whenever you start your happiness project , even if it’s a complete train wreck, open yourself to the possibility and what the world has for you next. Stay open .

Signed with love ~ Deanna R.

The Philosophy of everything part 1.

Why is everything so different from anything? If one could be anything than couldn’t they just opt to be everything? Is anything a thing? I suppose it could be closer to an idea, but even than surely an idea is a thing.

What about nothing? If one could choose to be anything surely they could choose to be nothing since anything consists of any possible thing. but this would imply nothing is a thing which is quite contradictory to its blatant meaning of not being a thing.

If nothing is not a thing than how could it be accessible within the parameters of anything? I suppose it could be an anti-thing.

If an antihero is a hero with non heroic qualities could an anti thing be a thing which lacks the qualities of a thing?

Well by this technicality nothing would be a place holder for the absence of a thing, and a place holder is a thing so surely it must be an anti-thing because while it lacks the qualities of a thing it somehow marginalizes itself into the category.

Alright enough of my nonsense, peace out

Half-Argument for relevance of abstract thinkers.

Why have academic intellectuals of our day deemed abstract thinkers worthy of a lesser merit? Is it because we’re more fun at parties? Or merely the jealousy over the modern academics inability to create anything profoundly original? Or most likely of the three: that I myself have grown bitter over my current favorite writers (Dostoevsky and Bakunin) being labeled as too abstract for relevance.

In spite of criticism I find them to be more relevant in a manner so practically profound yet dualistically simple that what is to be gained from reading such a variety is often overlooked. Let’s look at Dostoevsky for example, any one of his works that I have thus far picked up, has contained so much information that I could read the same passages for weeks on end and get new and unique lessons (not unlike reading a religious work) picking up informational tidbits about everything from the art of literature, psychology, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, Russian history sociology, and above all ethics.

Likewise with Bakunin, I first took to him for his rants about anarchism and radical political philosophy, but found myself being schooled on almost everything else under the sun in the process, as a result I see it more due to call these abstract thinkers vastly paradigmatic rather than irrelevant to their respective fields, and that again their is much more to learn from these types of thinkers than first meets the eye.