Psychological Tendencies: Opposites

So often a person will present their opposite to the world. One outwardly narcissistic, does so as a protection against ingrained, deep-rooted insecurities (often stemming from low self esteem, or social anxieties). A person who asserts their humility, however, is so often amongst the most conceited, and plays the 'courtier' to navigate the tribulations of societal expectancies. The confident, is the least confident, the comedian, is the manic-depressive etc.

Do not judge a person on what they 'present', with time you will see them for their actions, and will come to understand that it is within the subtleties, and the nuances of the patterns they formulate, that their true character is revealed.  

Oneself

Self-taught, one’s lexicon; where curiosity meets scepticism.

One with a love of words, of their meanings, their structure/form/morphology, and within their use, should not be punished for such an interest. You would have them labelled 'pretentious' when you fail to comprehend that this is an interpretation, and one that you have formed of your own accord. Search yourself for the reasons as to  why you would judge a person with such a predilection. 

A love of words, is not a crime, self expression is no more criminal; examine your reactions, and not the reagent, the catalyst, or the source of your emotions resulting. Take responsibility for why you feel the way you do, why you react the way you do. Acknowledge that this is a decision, and one that is so often within a person's power to control.

My Own Opinions: Personal Affirmations

I will emphasise that the views expressed within this page, are entirely my own (and are therefore subjective). They are not expressed/included to cause offence --as I understand that people's opinions differ significantly, and on a variety of subject matter-- though they are instead designed to incite further debate, to encourage inquisitive minds to challenge, and to question; and to detach oneself from personal feelings, so far as to form an understanding of the sort of future they themselves --and within relation to others-- would like to construct.

I believe that through reasoning, discussion, and by developing an understanding; disparate ideologies, differing opinions, and alternative perspectives can find common ground amongst each other, and in so doing, develop a mutual respect for a society of their own making.

We are not so different.

Timeless Awareness

• The future recalls the past, not the present. Meaning... What might be of importance/relevance currently, may not be so as antecedence replaces modernity.

Detrimental Hypocrisy

Do not feign your love for animals... You might have yourself convinced of this falsity, though others are not so easily fooled. You assert such absurd beliefs which stem from little else than your own self-serving conceit. You detach yourself from reality, for on a deeper level (one would hope) you recognise the cruelty within your actions. You enact little else other than to satiate your own savage barbarism,  whilst rescinding the life of another, casting it into nothingness; and contributing ultimately to the destruction of a once greater bio-diversity (the source of so much of our medicines, and modern technologies). Worst still, you seek to convince your children that this course is 'just', perpetuating further hatred towards the 'other' (why else re-package the dead flesh into appealing shapes) what lessons are you teaching them? That it is okay to take, and care not for the consequences? You strive to convince them of this, for it often takes much convincing before a child is willing to abandon their own instincts, recognising in it that this practise is counter-intuitive.

If this is the way in which you treat the things you allegedly 'love', than I shudder to consider the fate that awaits those other targets of your affection. Or is it simply that we choose what lives, and what dies? It lives if it serves our wants (and not our needs) though expires if it does not? Why stop there, human beings are animals also, should we not choose amongst those whose value is enough to ensure their survival? Let's assign human beings into convenient categories, and assess their compatibility in contributing to our lifestyles. Though do ensure that you harvest their remains, for otherwise, what a terrible waste that would be...

Further Considerations:

• There are some --though few by comparison-- exceptions worth noting; for example... Felines are obligate carnivores, meaning they must consume animal protein in order to ensure their continued survival. They are 'exempt' as an exception to the conditions proposed, though arguably, they are at a serious evolutionary disadvantage. This is because they are being out-competed from the dwindling resources they require, as humans continue their unsustainable actions. Therefore they are reliant upon human beings to maintain their species (as is evident within their behaviours, and likely their early interactions with humans, which much evidence would have us belief was enacted of their own volition).

Social Strata

Altruism?

• For the many to live well, the few must make sacrifices. Though should your place be amongst the few, than the many make for good sacrifices.

Current Sentiments 03

Action: 

• To what extent is a person compelled to act of their own volition? Is a sense of self enough to influence such control? Motivated by the presence of prior experiences, are we more so the result of repeated decision-making; to form the habitual 'tendencies' of our conscious existence? What is mind, and what is body? Where is the demarcation of the two? Are we the directors of change, or simply the product of reactions to outside stimuli? What is authentic? Are we to accept our position static, or view a malleability conducive to the influence of the 'other'? Perhaps to question, in itself is to detach ourselves from routine --from cause, and effect-- offering (if only momentarily) the opportunity, and ability to remove ourselves from the currents of life, before motion takes hold once more. 

Current Sentiments 02

The irony that is humanity's continued forceful, and self-assured determination for individualism; despite an acknowledged understanding upon --or otherwise ignorance to-- a reliance to the contrary. That is to say, a dependency upon the greater collective.

Current Sentiments 01

• Art demands little of the viewer, than of their own experiences.
• Is life meaningless, if there is not another 'present' to inform us of its meaning? Or do we take ownership of our existence, and choose to live within the meaning we assign it?
• Humanity seems amongst the greatest of inconsistencies. Ever striving for purpose within experiential absences. Seeking external answers to internal questions. The methodical grantors to creation, and destruction both.  Requiring affirmations to set dogmatism. The great custodians, and eradicators. Acknowledging worldly impermanence, whilst cogitating upon a promised better (an expenditure of time possibly ignorant to such pre-determined mortal ephemeralness). A simultaneous verve for order, and nihilism. The offer of freedom, with ignorance to anarchical resultants of such naivety. Life's great ally, and significant enemy.

If volition is what we seek --in many ways we have it-- should we not then strive (with such 'power') to define universal criterion, as deemed conducive to the existence of our choosing? Or accept perhaps that successive generations are so often to challenge the former. Where once we sought relevance within a cause, upon its realisation we later abhor. A 'necessary' change gives cause to reason, to a state of justification, and a successive rise to meet the absolution of a threat once met. 

Much of humanity fears the unification of its own; it selects from foreign sources what it is willing to adopt, though accepts not what in practise the forms of such a choosing may take. Fear of the unknown is a fear with much justification, as history exhibitevly depicts. For there is much to fear within something as so unpredictable, so difficult to control as human beings. Perhaps humanity's great consistency is found within its ability for, its efficiency in --and notable propensity to-- self-annihilation. Something it appears to do with much enthusiasm. 

Though if there are 'answers' to be had to the many questions the future demands of us, is it not the recognition that much progress stems from the consolidation of seemingly disparate, ideological, and cultural differences? Albeit with the initial challenges experienced inherent with many new 'relationships'. I question much of the rationale in support of an isolationist policy, for the consolidation --as mentioned- gains much strength when we choose to acknowledge the similarities, and to learn from the differences. If there is a fear to be had, it would be a splintered species that is too concerned with its internal conflicts, its decision and acceptance of infighting, and its preoccupation with divisions; than to see the far graver threats both internal, and external. Detach yourself from the situation, seek an alternate perspective --however temporary-- if for no other reason than to advance towards a level of lucidity perhaps once lacking, though reasonably attainable.

Consequential Biological Adaptations

Consider not only the ethical, economical, and ecological ramifications of an existence sustained --and sourced-- from the lives of others (fauna). The practises of the exploitation of animals as livestock. For there are those 'unseen' biological entities, of which a resurgence is evident; and through the aforementioned practises are the conditions supplied in quickening their advance...

Such 'forces' (microorganisms) care not for the lives or 'well-being' of humanity, so far as such symbiosis --between the macro, and micro-- serves the purposeful intent (that is the preservation of the ideal microbial ecosystems, as necessary to survival).

Evolution --and the resulting complexity that is the human being-- provides validity to the notion that we are each an 'individual', though perhaps it would be more accurate an assumption that the 'self' is little more than a psychological construct. A construct to provide unity, and 'drive' to the functions of the microscopic lifeforms that comprise us, and exist within;  that act through an elaborate state of co-efficiency. We are the external form, of the internal many.

Scientific advancements have provided much for the human species, though the negative 'returns' are more obviously documented within the greater (climate change) than they are within the microscopic; this should not be, for it is within the latter that harmful bacteria develops 'anew'. 

Animal husbandry, pastoral farming, and those industries that supports the exploitation of animals as 'livestock', have made significant use of science, in meeting the necessary efficacy --as deemed required-- for the chain of 'supply, and demand'. Though the aforementioned 'chains' have loosened with time (and with the provision of knowledge) it would seem a direct appeal to the self-serving nature of the individual is necessary to enact change (through the catalyst of 'fear'). As it is the continual, over miss-use of anti-biotics within these industries, that have supplied the necessary pressures --and conditions-- in quickening microbial adaptations. Such adaptations that we are now witnessing, and those adaptive qualities (as mentioned) threaten humans when located within each harmful bacterium. The diseases resulting are re-purposed --with a focus on immunisation against the use of such medication-- with disastrous consequences for the human species.

Elucidation Breeds Contempt

A reminder that these assertions are, of course, subjective; though I present them nonetheless, if for no other reason than to elicit constructive debate, and not to cause unnecessary 'polarisation' --a term seemingly synonymous with the current zeitgeist-- as is the developing reality with so many of today's issues.

I often question, in how best to 'deliver' information to opposing recipients; without the forthcoming, and conflicting 'right' or 'wrong' dichotomy when an 'accepted' principle is inevitably challenged. Can factual information not be that? Information derived from supporting evidence, and not confused as an absolute? Why must something be entirely one thing, or the other? The words 'right, and 'wrong', or 'this', and 'that' are too readily distributed amongst discussions of how things 'were', 'are', and 'should' be.

To address the individual, arguably, would be more effective than a group; for the latter would require over-coming the strength of evolved, animalistic 'tendencies'. As people rarely act unless such an action is proven socially acceptable. There is much danger within challenging the accepted 'order', granted, though progress takes root within the ability, and act of challenging, and the latter takes courage. Often this begins with singular motivation, and the volition of the individual to provide example.

'Delivery' seems to be quite crucial in how an individual (or group) decides to receive, process, and react to such stimuli. If a challenge (on any level is felt) the basal response within such an aggressive species, would be, presumably, to act in accordance with one's 'nature'; to respond with aggression. An aggression once physical, now intellectual, though often emotional (with the latter governing the resultant actions, derivatives of the initial thoughts as invoked).

Why should we accept an inability to recognise that emotions often stem from a considered thought. Should we not question the validity (and usefulness) of an emotion if it impairs one's ability to act in accordance with 'reason'? Should we not return to the thought at it's origin, and choose to act from a state of control, and not on the primal tendencies of the 'instinctive' (the basic response as derived from primitive instincts) or the 'instinctual' (motivated by deeper emotional 'drives'). Are we so unlearned, as a species?

Should the decision to react 'aggressively' be reached (to challenge with emotion, as opposed to a 'detached' questioning) than often the individual will seek to lessen the person's standing, by means of targeting areas often irrelevant to the subject presented. Such redirection, avoidance, and mitigation tactics should not be encouraged. Perhaps it is the very language of the individual; perhaps it is within the construction/form of the argument. Whilst I recognise the importance of both complexity, and simplicity; unless it is the latter of the two, the message is deemed disagreeable, the person, pretentious, the words, rhetoric. If the presentation --the 'form'-- is a challenging one, than I would encourage it to be met with a renewed, or discovered comprehension. I would argue there is great beauty within complexity (as there is simplicity) though given the 'choice', I would assume the former. Existence, is surely complex, so much as it is intelligible to humanity. Should we not celebrate humanity's curiosity, and continued enthusiasm for discovery amongst the great phenomena (and the details inherent?) Recognising the importance of 'simplicity' in order to govern, and provide structure to the unknown (the origin, arguably, of much fear) I disagree with the demonetisation of complexity, that the 'Devil is in the details'; though such categorisation is simplistic in itself, for conversely 'God is in the detail' also.

If you are unable to understand the validity of such an assertion (lacking the capacity to do so) it does not mean the statement is incomprehensible; though it likely reveals your arrogance in the assumption that you are 'correct', and others are not. Your response is likely an emotionally derived one --perhaps anger, amongst others-- as your intelligence is challenged, and brought into question. For what graver an insult is there than to expose another as misinformed, or inadequate; perhaps under-minding their ability to reason, and commit to logic. Though perhaps this is also subjective, it seems likely that it is. 

When accepted beliefs are challenged, yes this incurs difficulty, if for no other reason than it presents an affront to one's own sensibilities, questioning one's understanding whilst simultaneously exposing, presenting, and forcing the confrontation of the fearful unknown. A fear birthed from the revelation, and presence of such an unknown. Though are ignorance, stubbornness, and a reluctance to adapt, appropriate answers when the borders of reason, and knowledge migrate? Has humanity not proven its ability (and willingness) to challenge, test, and further themselves when such actions develop beyond simple necessity? How can we accept that what we are, is as it should be? The 'universe' does not, When we remove egotism, and a self-assured arrogance, when we destroy comfort, and replace it with progress; perhaps then will our purpose to be, and to act, develop the clearer.  

Order: Ordinance Challenged

• To make practicable --or to be seen in observation of-- those anthropological constructs made perceptible, and so well defined, can result in accusations of dogmatism. Though does the structure afforded by such doctrine (concepts given form through titles, and applied meaning) not prove advantageous to the counter anarchical re-placers?

• Note the possible calamity to ensue, should one comprehend not the differences between 'amoral', 'unmoral', and 'immoral' for example; such a response could enact discernible implications beyond a simple misunderstanding. An 'agency' deemed unmoral, would evidence no acknowledgement, consideration, resultant reaction or otherwise, of such humanistic devices as 'morality'; for it operates beyond its influence. Take note however, the agent of immorality; for similarly it retains autonomy, divorced of the moral 'mandate', though differs in its recognition (and subsequent dismissal) of such applied principles; instead it employs coercion, or manipulative forces to condition change, and accrue results. How then to recognise opposition, where no clear demarcation is immediately identifiable?

• I support the continual challenging of 'accepted' institutes, and held beliefs; though once such 'tenets' prove obsolete, where the past no longer equips the present, for the future. To encourage, and to question, and to innovate; these conditions advance, and give rise to progress.

Analysis: Cortical Remapping

. Sense perceptions, acting within concert relative to each other --in so far as to be 'harmonious'-- can evidence efficiency, consistency; though its utility is questionable when adjacent 'functions' suffer an acute onset of difficulties, and are rendered devoid of purpose. Where once prominent in activity, and productivity, such 'regions' now serve auxiliary functions to no discernible end. If the performance of the brain is akin to that of a map, than it is likely dualistic in that its restorative capacities can lead also to further complications if left without the individual's volition, and the mind's directorial influences, and faculties.

Serviceable Tools

• The equivocal essence of the work, stems not from the subtlety of line (or lack there of) the established marks as deemed evident, nor to the correlation of said mark making, in frequency, relativity, or aesthetic; though in the ambiguity of the content itself, where the visual elements provide the catalyst for further thought, interpretation, and possibly a resulting action.

The irony of such an ideation being, that to state a work must be conducted a certain way --the primacy of content, above technique-- is to deny that one can, and often does in-form the other. That through a given process may one be led to further discovery. As with neuro-plasticity, the somatic is to neurology, as the neurological is to the spiritual. To underestimate the importance of function above result (not so much cause, as the means to achieve effect) to elevate the latter with little credence to the former; is to deny, in part, the cyclical nature of what it is to exist.

Personal Philosophical Observances

Further reflections, provided expression: 

• Face the cub, or expose your back to the tiger.
• From the past, the future arises, as the progenitor births the progeny; though in the latter beware, for should self-awareness give rise to self-interest, the creator will seek to destroy the created, as the master to the student; recognising in it, its own transience.
• The mental, the physical, both inform, and shape each other; as the Yin, to Yang. The cyclical nature of water pertains to no particular 'source', the brain houses the functions of the mind, though its apparent plasticity suggests an inherent adaptability; take note of such interdependence; as a circle, a line, has no definitive beginning or end, until it is defined.  Adhere not to structure, though to cause, and see the end for its beginning.
• First steel yourself, lest the corrosive sets; should the root take hold, than the plant will grow; isolate the cell, cut away the rot, or forthwith from the ember will spread the flames.
•  Aggressive machinations are likely to occur from within, for it is within are found those so well equipped for such a task. As in-action is an action, you create opportunities.
• A self-fashioned mirror invites esteem, as it does disdain.
• Change proceeds necessity, necessity, calamity, calamity, change.  

As evidenced from the writing beneath, I begin with condensing my observances into something coherent, and applying this further, refine it until such 'expressions' are gleaned:

• Through direct, or in-direct means (conscious, or sub-conscious) the individual seeks, or endeavours to hinder/lesson the actions of another; particularly those to which an inter-personal relationship is shared, most prominent, or fundamental. Reliant upon, and driven subsequently by self-interest; it is one's very self-awareness that requires the aforementioned 'lessoning'; for in order to maintain the established equilibrium --the security of one's own nurtured sensibilities-- we pre-empt, and strike against those who challenge this. Insidiously, such 'assaults', and aggressive machinations are likely to occur from within your social circle, with whom those you trust; for it is with these individuals who are so well equipped for such a task; that as you expose your back to the tiger, in so doing you invite disaster, and create opportunities.

Considerations, Concerning Cause, and Effect.

To consume the flesh of another, is to assume its properties; and unless to guarantee an infallible existence, accept the debt of a life now extinguished, and provision yourself for the coming interest. 

Thoughts, Considerations, and Notations

If the belief is well-supported, consider it with a degree of solemnity; if only to be dealt with according to one's own sensibilities.

Personal Philosophical Principles

A collation of personal thoughts, gleaned from my own writing; reflecting my current sentiments, and interpreted through emblematic expressions.

These words--although personal by nature--are subject to interpretation; and are distillations of the principles outlined further within my own writing:
 

• I construct my present, to design my future; though in so doing, I destroy my past.
• You are the result of yesterday's thoughts, today's words, and tomorrow's actions.
• Fear is the shadow of doubt, a doubt created of one's own fear.
• The act reveals, what the word conceals. 
• Focus not on the claws, but the tail. The pounce was launched many steps prior.
• Sublimate your fears, your doubts, and your frailties; use these as the materials to construct the mask to which you wear. 
• To play the game, is to first learn the rules, to discover one's position, to see one's purpose, and to act to its realisation (its 'resolution'). Though time has since past, and the rules have changed, the purpose has changed; and so to the game has changed also.
• The immortal has much to lose, for as with the coniferous tree, up-root it, and it will perish; though leave it, and it will only harden with time.
  
  There is a likelihood, that these personal phrases will be further elaborated upon, illustrated, and provided with a degree of context, within my work.

Philosophical Ramblings/Discursive

Is a thought, an act, or the causality of such beholden to the concept of right, or wrong; if another were not 'present' to deem it so? Are we reliant on consensus to inform us of this?

Although to exist is inherently 'good' (or is seen as such) it is reliant upon the 'evil' that pervades it; an evil that at its source provides the counter (often a being, an agency, or that which is similarly so). For one is not without the other. It is thus suggested that 'good' does not exist without the 'evil' that defines/provides its meaning. The discoveries of humanity aid in the 'defeats' against the fears stemming from the unknown; though should humanity (through such efforts) realise all that which can be known; to approach the last in all frontiers (should such limitations exist) than would not this inherent 'stagnation' be the downfall of humanity? Where challenge in itself provides the purpose, and that to 'exist' is not enough. Society exists within the rules of today; though through the challenges of tomorrow.

Lead an examined life.