Why? Why not? Create.

Why must their always be a point every time we string together our words and ideas into some form of composition or another. Is writing itself not enough of an art that it may not be conducted purely for it’s own sake?

Why must we worry ourselves with developing the purpose prior, when the readers are going to derive their own purposes from it anyways? They don’t care about why we wrote it anyhow. Unless they are trying to understand how you wrote it, than what they truly care about is why they’re reading it. Therefore it is better to say something than to waste your time worrying about what it is you might want to say, and why.

That is not to imply premeditated work is bad; but I’ve never found it particularly sensible to premeditate something which is intended to be original. Rather, I find it best to leave the matter up to unconscious forces. By feeding my brain with masses of whatever stimulus it’s calling for, whether it be visual art, literature, music, social interaction, film etc.

What ensues is a sort of melting pot of creativity; a churning mixture of ideas, sounds, visions, quotes, and words. Than when all is finished, my brain begins to inform me, like my microwave beeping to signal that my peach-hibiscus tea is ready.  If I neglect this task of release, it grows louder and harder to ignore. It does not however signal this verbally. It notifies me in the form of a weird sort of anxiety or pressure.

A pulsing and often painful urgency that grows in intensity the longer I try to fight it off. Never ceasing to torment all levels of my consciousness until I eventually take to pen, keyboard, or instrument. It is the same force that compels me away from mundane and fruitless uses of time. The same that haunts me with every minute I spend working in conventional labor.

It’s as a chain or a rope, always leading me towards the act of creation. Always pulling me through endless acquisition of knowledge and skill building. Persistently dragging me up a hill. A tall mountainous hill that is rocky and often steep. The difficulty of the climb is however irrelevant.

Resistance as well as inaction prove futile,  countless attempts at both have shown  no end save for agony and despair.  If one ignores this calling, they may as well be digging their own grave with their bare hands, only to cowardly crawl inside and await in patient sorrow for starvation and the elements to gradually overcome them.

If one answers the call, they may or may not find success. Whether they do or not is irrelevant; what follows after will be identical either way: building upon what they’ve already created, and striving to out due their current and previous accomplishments with something new. A cycle that will persist for the entirety of their existences.

There may be brief moments of self appreciation upon fulfilling tasks, completing projects and reaching milestones, but that is a light refreshment rather than the true reward. The real enjoyment comes from the process of creation in of itself. The reward is the experience. When you listen to a song, you are not listening merely to have heard it, and likewise when you sing a song you are not singing merely to have sung it.

If you have done something a thousand times, is it because you wanted to perfect it? Or is it because you enjoy doing it so much that you are compelled to do it a thousand times? I don’t believe I could will myself to do something a thousand times if I did not enjoy it or the outcome.

This shows us obsession is no less a source of mastery than dedication. After all what is obsession? You could label obsession a negative trait or a defect and perhaps in extreme instances, or those where the obsession involves detriment to others it is.  However in it’s milder, and more benign or controlled forms is a sort of voluntary dedication. That is to say a peculiar type of dedication that does not seem to require effort, and if it does, it does not feel like it does.

For example someone who is obsessed with a particular author may read all of their books back to back and learn everything that author had to teach, something which for others may feel treacherously boring. They may practice an instrument arduously for hours a day and not for a single minute feel that they are obligated to do so.

We are thus propelled both forward and upward, not by financial necessity nor material enticement, but by spiritual necessity and an insatiable lust for the labors of life in and of themselves. We create not to have created or to be creators but simply for the pleasure to create again.

The sun does not rise to give the energy of light that allows our crops to photosynthesize. It rises because of the earth’s tendencies to rotate and revolve around it. Likewise if someone derives enjoyment or utility from something I wrote, as great as that is, would not make it the reason why I wrote it.

It may be the reason why I choose to distribute some of my work, but I was writing long before that. Just as most painters were like busying themselves with brush in hand long before anybody genuinely enjoyed their work. Ergo if one is going to pursue something anyways, they may as well attempt to make the most out of it.

If you take the time to craft or create your going to get better over time. Similarly if you do something consistently, why not put in the effort of doing it well? Arduous practice aside, this may consist of studying the deeper logic behind it,  acquiring related skills and sub skills that directly or indirectly lend support to the primary, and finding new ways to adapt and apply these skills to different areas and patterns of creation in order to manifest innovative ideas and solve new types of problems.

If we take the time to develop a craft which could lend to the entertainment and utility of others, why not distribute it? If your gonna work on something regardless of weather or not it earns you wealth, why not do so in a way that opens up the potential to earn wealth with it?

I  like many creative types, started writing without any purpose beyond feeling a sort of internal need to write. As we continue however, we create new opportunities for additional purposes. In a similar sense you could call this article is a microcosm of that phenomena

Furthermore if you do the right thing for the right reasons, does that permit one the right to expect the right results? Maybe not, but it ought too. To some of you this article may not have said a word. Some of you might be a little more adept at reading between the lines. If a picture tells a thousand words than certainly a thousand words must paint a picture. What kind of picture did this paint for you?





Do religions & philosophies = operating systems for our brains?

I recall as a young elementary student, being told that brains are essentially computers. This made sense to me at a young age, but it wasn’t until way later that I began to abstract from the cross reference of cognition and computation.

This perhaps may be the most obvious parallel, but programming languages are inherently languages. Whilst one could argue that they work differently from a functional perspective as well as in the types of problems they’re intended to solve, when one begins to expand and broaden their understanding of language as a tool the differences seem to become increasingly arbitrary.

One begins to wonder, how does one written doctrine or collection of doctrines, dictate the way in which people live and organize for centuries to come; as is seen of successful religious, political, and philosophical systems.

In a sense these things exist as a set of instructions for a (group of) human(s) to follow, much like a program acts as a set of instructions to be followed by Computer processing units.

Let’s take operating systems for example. Most operating systems are created by various programming languages; as a parallel. Most belief systems, regardless of whether they exist as political, religious, spiritual, or philosophical; are conveyed through either written text or word of mouth, both of which require some level of articulated language.

Much like an operating system, the purpose which belief systems serve; is to increase, expand and or simplify the functionality of the core machinery. If one ascribes to belief system, than ideally most of their interactions with the world around them will be internalized and understood in accordance with and through that perceived medium.

Similarly most interfacing that we do with our computers is done through the medium of our operating system or tools for expanding upon our system aka languages/programming languages, and by extension schools of thought which may correlate to libraries, frameworks, and APIs for programming languages.

This can in both instances incite compatibility issues. For example if you are a believer in a creationist system like most form of Christianity than their system is in its default state incompatible with the Big Bang theory ‘thoughtware package’. Among many others. On the contrary if your an atheist, than the belief in god is incompatible.

I personally believe the world would be a far better place if more people realized they could believe in god and develop their spiritual lives and connections to the divine without ascribing to beliefs which inherently contradict scientific data, logic, reason, or common decency, but hey to each their own.

I also posit that by extension this would make Scientology the spiritual equivalent to temple OS. Both impressive systems invented under highly questionable pretenses. Both seemingly exist purely because they can, rather than arriving out of any real necessity, and both did a great job of attracting the public eye in spite of high degrees of obscurity within their respective domains.

On a similar note Since Jewish people have to be born Jewish to be accepted within the religion, doesn’t that make it kinda like Mac OS which under general circumstances is only intended to work on Apple hardware?

And what about Linux? They make it really easy for anyone to create their own version. Does Hinduism not allow for anyone to make their own derivation from its ideological kernel?

This could be argued as being true for Christianity as well, however Christianity is more often innovated by its own elected clerical leaders, rather than followers and layman. On the contrary, while existing Linux versions are often up-kept by their respective developers, new ones are being created all the time by anyone who wishes.

Technically someone could write their own version of the Bible (or windows.) But one would likely face religious and or corporate prosecution for doing so, in regards to either heresy or plagiarism respectably.

Note: This should go without saying but I will anyways: this is not to be interpreted as perfect comparison, but rather a broad theoretical framework for comparison. If my article offends you please do both of us a favor and unsubscribe. With all due to respect if philosophizing about the interconnectedness of all forms of knowledge plays on your emotions, you are without a doubt in the wrong place. However If you disagree and wanna talk about it from a level headed perspective that’s awesome, please disagree as actively as you’d like as long as your format is coherent with reason.

Now back to my train of thought. This could be a far fetched claim, but one could also correlate the innovation of blockchain technology, with Anarchist philosophy finally nearing full circular functionality.

Okay now slow down what are you getting at?

Well before blockchain technology it was kinda impossible to imagine an economic society functioning without an inherent leader. However I theorize that decentralized blockchain ledgers are the or at least one of the missing piece(s) that anarchist philosophy has been missing the whole time.

That is a way to deal with the transferring of resources without any central form of imposed government. With every end user hosting a copy of the block chain acting as a node for the server, every participating member thus holds an equal and identical representation and record.

If you really think about it, isn’t an economy where every participating member gets an equal amount of leadership; essentially the same as saying their are no true leaders?

To myself this whole thing sounds very much reflective of the systems detailed in theories which stemmed from primitive-anarchism such as mutualism, syndicalism and collectivism. I believe it indirectly speaks from all three, while still being compatible with the core fundamentals of Capitalism and thus retaining our ideological fertilizer for innovation.

There are many other places I could take this, such as the comparison of servers to real life hosts of business, services and knowledge. Or how computer networks resemble the flow of resources and information through various economic, academic, religious, political and social systems serving as network mediums.

After all networks existed before the computers we know today, postal systems a telegraph systems and telephone are all fully functioning networks. Albeit less efficient yet equally plausible methods of communicating and transmitting information even in the modern age.

I could go on much longer But I think I’ll cut this one short, as I feel I’ve painted enough of a general picture for readers to take this thought and run with it, expand on it, etc.

Actually quite literally, if a pictures worth a thousand words than this article is roughly equivalent to an entire picture. Regardless of that sentiment I hope anyone who took the time to read this article got something out of it, regardless of the how or the why. Well readers; I hope you all have a great day, thanks for taking the time to read as always!

Das Ende.