So much

Feeling gets trapped in emotions.

We can only use knowledge if we transcend it.

We can live in different worlds if we choose to transcend the present one. Much of the hold that today’s “world” has over people is in their head. It’s into the associations they make in their heads between brands, and connotations, emotional, etc.

Relations between people don’t make sense. They are not things to think over. Because true interaction and relation happens when all thinking is dispensed with. It is why intellectuals make poor conversationalists often. Because they are too much in their heads, and not engaging emotionally with the people in front of them. All social relations are ultimately better when those involved just dispense with thought. This doesn’t mean that they dispense with respect, for thought is not necessary for respect. It is not that they dispense with kindness, for thought is not necessary for kindness. But they do dispense with thinking, even with the person’s name, because when you’re engaging completely with somebody, you forget their name. Same with sex. Who thinks during sex? And does this make great sex? No. Never. It’s shit. The best sex is without thinking, it’s when there is no order, it’s when the whole world peels away and you’re just there, together, even you and them peel away and it’s just one. Music has a similar effect on people. Music makes the world peel away, and we become more aware and alert and enthralled in an event, to the point where it is the only thing. And why shouldn’t it be the only thing?

We have constructed worlds in our heads, that only we live in, and we presume that other people also see the same worlds as we do, but in truth they see different ones. We might talk about them and true to gauge how other people approach their “versions” of such worlds, but in truth, this does not make them any more real. Take Brazil for instance, a country I have never visited. I can imagine “Brazil”, and lots of images come to my head. But they are not Brazil. I am not in contact with Brazil, I am only in contact with my memories, and my imagination. The same goes for Apple. I have only contact with the website, the adverts, and the phone, yet often, Apple inhabits my head, as an entity, with which I derive associations to other things. But it doesn’t make sense for I never actually come into contact with this Apple (imagined) in my head, I just come into contact with things I associate to it. The fiction is there, in my head, and this is what may hold sway, as long as I choose to allow it to abide there. But it does not have to, and there is no reason why it needs to be there, it does not have any use, and forgetting the image of Apple will not make me forget the computers themselves. It just changes my relationship to my imagined Apple, and thereby, the things which I might have associated to Apple, the phones, the advertisements, the “employees”, the computers, the website. Each is just a component, but a key component of Apple is in my head, it’s in my thoughts, it’s an association tree which Apple, and my experiences with things I have associated with Apple in the past have helped to construct. Without this, Apple is not the same Apple, Brazil is not the same Brazil.

This association perhaps also happens with ageing. What is ageing, if not just your body changing over the course of its existence? Yet we often derive much more from it. We imagine that childhood lasts from 0–17/18, then adolescence, whatever, and then “man”, then middle age, then old, then elderly, then death’s door then deceased. But with each of these labels, we often carry associations, particularly, as to the “behaviour” of how “such people” should act. But these are not people, these are experiencers, who are experiencing life. Nobody is middle-aged, except in their heads. Why? Because being middle-aged is a concept. Being middle-aged just to be 20 years old. Now it’s 40–50, since life expectancy has doubled. What happens when life-expectancy increases again, to 150 years old? Do we have 75 year olds getting sports cars and talking about the war, or reading mechanics magazines, or saying, “I’m still the man I used to be”, etc, etc. Do we have 100 year olds just finishing retirement, and saying, “well, now I can enjoy my life”.

This stuff is arbitrary, there is no reason outside of social psychological expectation that entails any kind of behaviour associated with age. Okay, adolescents usually take more risk. That’s a survival mechanism. But we have this landmark change when university graduates suddenly forget how to have fun and want to “push to the top”, shirk their childlike curiosity (and I have to say childlike curiosity, because there’s no other term in the English language that references what I want to reference, even though I am saying that such curiosity shouldn’t be delimited to people aged in what we call “children”.). We often treat “older people” (bullshit term) as if they are glass cabinets, to be treated very gently, handled with care, and preserved as long as possible, until they inevitably fall apart and die. But imagine being treated in this way, “oh, don’t go outside, you’ll hurt your hip”, “are you sure you don’t want to go somewhere else, in case you trip on the stairs?”, you would say to these questions, or at least I would “shut the fuck up”, of course I don’t need this stuff. It’s as if the “danger” of dying overshadows the joy of life in peoples’ years after the age of 70. So much is treated with caution, danger is seen as a big threat, childhood is forgotten, “because that already happened to me” (same for most over 26 years old), and we psychologically delimit our lives by putting ourselves into boxes and behaving according to these boxes and what they entail, no matter how miserable it might make us feel.

Why the fuck should I act any differently from when I am 12, to when I am 27? Okay, perhaps I might have to shoulder more responsibility, but that’s something else. Often, responsibility is taken away from “children”, until “working age”, (which used to be 10, and is now 18). Why shouldn’t children have more responsibility? This would make them more motivated — here, a clear connection between responsibility and motivation has been drawn by numerous peeps). But why should I act any differently? Should I tell less jokes? Should I play less games? Should I not play chasies? Why? We have a generation, or several generations who any psychologist will say, are completely removed from their inner child, and are riddled with issues that they won’t care to open up about. We have a plethora of Tedx speakers, saying how childlike creativity, tenacity, optimism, never-say-die attitudes are just the thing that the “working world” needs, and still, we say that “acting like a child is silly”. In fact, it is the inverse, it is we, who are silly, for forgetting the parts of ourselves that were living in our younger years, and with whom we had the most fun, and with whom we learnt the most.

The fact is, we only associate certain parts of ourselves, to “childhood”, as if these parts were just characteristics of being a certain age, which would wear away when we matured. In fact, these never wear away, and are often forgotten, pushed down, bullied into hiding, and the like, and sit there still, in each one of us, waiting to inspire us. The myth of the “child” is embedded twofold, in mistreating kids as weak, stupid, silly, immature, incapable of holding responsibility, and unmotivated, and in mistreating “adults” as “sensible” (sense here just holding a certain world in your head which doesn’t actually exist beyond each person), as being “mature”, (when in fact maturity just stands for not making jokes, not laughing at poo jokes [because apparently we are above such things], driving a black car instead of a colourful one, talking in a certain way), as being “sophisticated” (when in fact sophistication usually entails rhetoricising bullshit (whether watch brands, perfume commercials, talking about music as if there was some kind of intellectual element to it, talking about books as if the more you dissected it using stuff like “onomatopoeia”, or “allegoric rhythm”, that you somehow got closer to its “true” meaning, all of this is just intellectual bullshit, and intellectual bullshit, is just that, bullshit, because it means that people do not transcend the shit that comes into their heads, and so they don’t generate any kind of deeper relationship with the information, and so they end up just following its various connotations, whoever may spin them with ad campaigns, political campaigns, or various other bullshit rhetoric, which usually just means stitching all of this bullshit together in “artistic” ways, or with real-world emotional connotations, so that people believe that there really is something there to care about, and mind, when in fact it’s just obfuscating the truth by a thousand little folds and incisions. None of these things are actually used as knowledge by most people, because they don’t transcend them. Only through transcendence of the information, can its essence be understood, and can relationships be observed between that essence and other things which they might observe in their lives. Essence here implies experiencing the information intuitively, as a feeling, whereby one actually understands how the information actually might relate to different things in their lives in front of them. Transcending the information means actually being able to place it in new contexts, rather than just the original context which it might have been placed into. Only through being able to apply the information to different contexts, the most important of which, being the experience in front of us, can this information actually be utilised, as a tool. Otherwise it just ends up clouding our mind, because we have lots of emotional connotations to wisps of smoke, and never actually pick and apply that information correctly. We prioritise information that we hold, and ignore the information that we might not hold, and apply lots of other biases, which are well documented in behavioural economics circles.

But all these subjects; biodiversity, economics, literature, meditation, maths, all these things, we have always talked about them as like “stacking”, i.e., standing on the shoulders of giants and all that, and “having more knowledge”, the more that pre-existing “knowledge” is utilised, to prove more complex things. But we have stood so high on the shoulders of others that we are now mostly incapable of seeing where they were standing, how and why that knowledge was first constructed, and what purpose it served. We are also incapable of establishing the relationships between the their essence and the knowledge that we have now, and because everybody is apparently so smart, we often rarely defer back to basics, to understand the first principles and essence of the things that we originally observed, but were then. built upon for new things.

But firstly, what if all the different things which have been devised as knowledge, had essence, which could be distilled down to a few various thing?

And secondly, what if we have divided the human condition into lots of different “sub-categories” or “pseudo-classes”, (these are just fancy words for the way you might think given a certain aspect, say class, or your job, or your age, or your nationality, or something else, and since we all like to experience everything, but many things aren’t acceptable, and given the assumption that the universe is constantly balancing itself, or is always in balance, perhaps each person has something to offer another one, and the more different they might be, or the more diverse their backgrounds, the more that they can learn from each other. Because the people that we might meet provide us with balance, and perspective about that which we feel and attest to know, and have dominion over — the more people mix, the more people learn, the more people grow, and the more people understand themselves in many different ways. Usually the least tolerant people in “societies”, are those that have never met the “types” of people that they lack tolerance of. Up to now, we have been balancing each other, but perhaps, if we learn to balance ourselves, then we might open ourselves up to way, way more than we otherwise would have if we stayed in certain boxes and didn’t venture out of them.

We might say, “ahh, but many people aren’t motivated to try new things, to step out of their comfort zone, it’s just something you have or you don’t”, and perhaps that’s true. Perhaps it’s the courage to be weird, the courage to bear unpleasant things, to take the harder road, that usually leads to people going outside the norm. But that is contingent on the norm being one of unipolarity, of sticking to a certain thing, and acting in a certain way. But perhaps the norm could be that there wasn’t a norm. That things were always changing, and it was normal to seek a lot of different things. This might decrease the atmosphere of pressure