This is it.

Take careful notice of the fifth diamond.

Ignore the rampant bustle which beats like a drum.

Should you leave, forget where you came from.

Rise, proceed.

Where thence were we off to?

To supply an answer would only serve to dull the fun.

Still they’d tread ever so slightly behind.

Our ironically innocent anti-hero. Whom many would fail to mark as evil in the public eye.

Was indeed anti-heroic. Their acts of heroism and selflessness were not uncommon.

Yet perpetually plagued by flaws of character. The type Only a misfit or a nihilist would idealize. For now.

His thought process, especially in terms of ethical evaluations was quite unique.

He had an almost backwards ability of self justification. He always had for every positive moral decision he made, a selfish backup reason.

Almost as if lacking desire to admit he was doing the right thing just too do it.

If everyone believes their own effort to do the right thing, who really is?

How is the right thing any better than the left thing?

Pause.

I felt that.

Felt what?

That.

How?

No clue. Semi-clue. Artifact.

Noises continually find their way to my perception.

The vision of one is anothers radar.

Pause.

Don’t auto pilot your poisons.

Perhaps I ought not dictate after being so hostile toward the bottle.

Advertisements

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!

My take on Cartesian Skepticism.

The path of thought followed by Renee Descartes never failed to lead me to a state of uneasiness and excitement and leave me full of new questions. The deeper I considered and explored these ideas the more I was instilled with a deep conflicting sense of fear and curiosity.

Who is Descartes?

For readers who don’t study philosophy, Renee Descartes was an enlightened despot of the French enlightenment era that took place through the early to mid 1500s Descartes was and is very well known among intelligentsia. This notoriety is granted on behalf of his advancements in philosophy as well as science and mathematics. Despite his other achievements my intellectual relationship with this player is based purely on his philosophical innovations and for the purposes of this article that’s all that need brought up.

What is Cartesian Skepticism?

Descartes originally formed his World view or interlocking set of beliefs on that which we derive from our sense perceptionsm also known as empirical observation. This would however change drastically as Descartes began his philosophical journey to the absurd and back. The ideas to be analyzing pertain to his epistemological beliefs and attitude.

Epistema-whatnow?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the term epistemology denotes “a theory or the study of knowledge especially with reference to it’s limits of validity.”

Descartes was well known for his radically skeptic epistemological position, meaning he constantly doubted and questioned the integrity of his worldview. However his skepticism would not end at the scrutiny of his belief systems. Rather he took it a step further. He didn’t just scrap all his beliefs and stop there; he now began to doubt the very methods used to obtain knowledge and reason with it in the first place.

How could this be so, seeing is believing isn’t it?

Well that seems to be the case for the majority throughout history (with exceptions like god and aliens) , as the old saying goes ignorance is bliss. Yet for some of us the profound excitement of curiosity is and will always be far more appealing than the comfort of familiarity.

Descartes didn’t care for comfort, he plunged deep into the unknown depths of theoretical possibility and absurdity. As he ought, After all pushing the possibility of thought to its limits is what philosophers do best.

He grew so affixed upon this notion that he even began to wonder if his perceived reality was real at all, positing the theoretical idea that our reality may be an artificial illusion. An idea thought to stem from profound experiences regarding dreams.

However Descartes (like myself) was a devout believer in a higher power, that he might know as god. I on the other hand have no specific word to denote such a force I would merely describe it as the grand harmony of Kindness , Karma , Chaos , Beauty and Irony.

Due to his devout faith he did not believe god would do such a thing like trap us in a false reality, so he posited that If we were living in a simulated reality it would have to be the work of an evil genius attempting to keep us away from the land ruled by god and trapped within this illusion.

Excuse me?

At first I found it hard to swallow myself. But alas as I began to venture further along my own philosophical journey I too began too notice odd coincidences that lead me into the direction of such a belief, which continues to be something I ponder and speculate upon quite regularly.

I advise those not philosophically, religiously, or psychologically inclines to not think too deeply into this for the sake of their own sanity. This is not the kind of information one can internalize and work through without a concrete system to guide the way.

So are you saying this belief is dangerous?

yes I definitely believe it has the potential to exacerbate or even induce symptoms of serious mental illness. Such a belief could easily inspire someone to end their life another’s on behalf of believing that existence is only a game or simulation, which is obviously completely irrational regardless of your beliefs.

In general I’ve devised three mental safeguards while in pursuit of this line of thinking, which act as a fail safe in case one finds themself in a position where it becomes difficult to differentiate what is fake from reality in the layman’s eyes.

Nah your exaggerating, how could books be dangerous?

To share a personal story on the subject, I once was laying in bed unable to sleep, focusing on inducing visionary fractals within my closed eye vision field when I started to feel a little tingly. At the time I was starting new s medication, as well as consuming herbal sleep aids with mild psychoactive properties. (Article about my favorite medicinal herbs coming soon.) so I didn’t really think anything of it.

At least until I began hearing noises. They began while drifting into a state of half awake half unconscious. But not just any noises, Hospital noises: beeping of a heart monitor, water pumping through an IV bag, footsteps echoing from a desolate hallway, people talking inaudible English, and the vague image and scent of a hospital room began to vivify, after this i sprang up out of bed and did not sleep again for the rest of the night, I spent the following two months in half belief that I was stuck in a coma.

Eventually I chalked it off to my brain

attempting to recreate conceptual phenomenon to attain a better understanding or just a really strange case of sleep paralysis, but this example shows how easy it is to be caught up in Cartesian skepticism.

And those would be?

>Three tips for exploring Cartesian skepticism

1. Understand that it doesn’t matter.

• in retrospect finding out we lived in a simulation or a dream would not inherently change anything in of itself. Provided there’s no way to leave, what difference could it possibly make?

2. Remember that it’s imgpossible to prove.

Just like the concepts of an omniscient god or a spiritual afterlife there is no concrete definitive way to prove reality is or is not a dream like simulation, no matter how much coincidental or subjective empirical claims stack up on either side.

3. Interpret the idea through an analytic lens

looking at it from various applicable perspectives such as theological, political, psychological or sociological through use analysis and identification of potential allegorical/symbolic links, the ideas of Descartes can be applied to common reality. Examples:

Analytic lenses: Political

Could be looked at as the wool thrown over the eyes of the masses by corrupt leaders, exploiting their power through lies and secret affairs kept from the general public for personal and gain. (think sheep mentality/herd mentality etc)

Analytic lenses: Theological

One could argue the illusion vs reality corresponds to ones spiritual life or connected with god, this is especially true in a modern era where egotism, idol worship and material obsession come between the population and developing a spiritual life or as some would call it a connection with god.

Analytic Lenses: Psychological

The false reality could refer to how perception of the world around us is subjectively altered in correspondence based to what we believe.

For example: let’s say jack is walking down the street in a coat and he notices Jane in her dress. (And me I’m in a rock and roll band HA.) Maybe jack never thought Jane was pretty before, but since he’s running 30 minutes early he decides to have a chat with the young clerk. After getting to know each other they hit it off big time, find out they have all the same life dreams, interests and tastes. Suddenly our once homely miss Jane is the sweetest looking thing he has ever laid his eyes.

I would like to extend a warm welcoming thank you to anyone who took the time to read this or any of our articles. Do your part to help build this community by subscribing, sharing, commenting, liking, and emailing us, we absolutely love support, feedback, criticism, dialectics and all non-toxic interactions with our readers.

If you would like to learn more about the French enlightenment thinker Renee Descartes more info can be found in the links below:

 

>https://www.storyofmathematics.com/17th_descartes.html -Renee Descartes on mathematics.

>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biography.com/.amp/people/ren-descartes-37613 -biographical summary

>https://www.famousscientists.org/rene-descartes/ Renee Descartes on Science

 

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.