Exuse the title, I haven't actually been through this outlook yet, so I have no idea whether it'll even be worth re-reading.
Of all the triggers for this thought, this thought was derived from Happy Feet. Yes, you heard (read). It's about the way humans view this world, live with themselves, and how they/we feel about each other and others.
I haven't actually come to any conclusions yet, hopefully this calculation will be complete by the end of this post, so I'm going to go through this data from the start, and try and follow my logic before the philospical outlook ends.
You know how we try to prevent the extinction of other species? Animals are endangered, and we cling to them all the more tightly, even though we're the reason they're going extinct? I can't decide what I think of this behaviour (I can't describe it yet, it's far too broad. Perhaps I have a word for it, and it'll come to me later). This behaviour, is it admirable or pathetic? Strong, or weak? There are arguments for both sides, and I'm overcome with a desire to reach a conclusion. This is probably the longest running question that has ever entered my mind that I can solve, for I can see light at the end of the tunnel, yet unlike every other question that's come to mind, I actually have the time to write/type about it.
Okay, back to the question before I forget: The Human Interaction with Other Things. I use the word "things" in sheer, utter lack of a better word. Are we fools to care about the things passing out of our lives, even if they will come to pass further into the future than our lives stretch? There are many people trying to protect endangered animals from extinction, people clutching to antique pieces of art and craft. The museum is perhaps the face of this behaviour/outlook (I still haven't thought of a name for it yet). Why do we care about things of the past, or things that are headed that way? Is it selfishness, we want to experience/use them? Is it pity, we want to give them a better chance? Is it out of guilt, we don't want to be responsible for their obliteration? Is it out of selflessness, we want other people to experience/use them?
Here's another thought: our clinging onto or ressurecting dead/dying things usually wastes energy and resources. It sets us back as a race. This suggests that our reasons for these actions are greater than the resources we spend (squander may also fit here). But we still do it. I try to revive games from my 98 now and again. To re-experience them in case you ask. Re-live memories. Does this apply to us trying to save the golden finch, or other endangered species? WHY can't we move on? Aren't WE the ones doing the damage?
The light's getting dimmer, as I see that the tunnel is longer than I thought. I hope I don't leave these questions unanswered.
Answer time I think. If it is something that we believe has thoughts for itself, or we imagine that it/they have thought(s) for it/them selve(s), we try to save/ressurect it/them to grant the gift of life, and happiness. We save koalas to ensure they live happy lives. To spread joy and well-being. When it is an object that gives us happiness or enjoyment, we save it/them to bring this joy and happiness to others.
Perhaps we are selfless after all. Perhaps we are the guardians of happiness.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Drive behind the Ratchets
The Drive behind the Ratchets
Please excuse me for making this post at such a late hour; all my inspiration comes when I have to do something I don’t want to do (sleep, assignment, school), and my mind reaches out, contemplating the mysteries of the mind, the universe, and the laws of nature. Why do I do so at these useless times? That’s another post, The Law of Opposition/Seperation, but I’ll explain that at another time. I got up so I could write this before I forgot it by the morning like I usually do for all my intelligent ideas.
I present here what drives me. Should I be an intricate design of gears, pulleys, switches, batteries and ratchets, I can now explain to you the engine of myself, the reaction that powers me, the force that drives me.
Lying down, failing to achieve shut down protocol (sleep people), I was thinking as usual, and my world of thought spat out this: I believe that everyone is driven by a single desire, or maybe one or two.
You may oppose this. You are probably going “what about the need/desire to eat? To socialize? To (putting it bluntly here) reproduce?” These are bodily desires in my opinion. Identical and found in all standard version 93.23 humans. The human engine however, can differ from you and me.
After reviewing my habits, I believe that the deepest level of my desire is to experience stories.
I’ll explain: I’m an obsessive game player. I love playing through games, and playing online. This is in accordance to my desire to “experience stories”. Don’t see the connection? Most games have a single player campaign. The ones I enjoy are superbly done, pleasing me with the graphics, the sound/music, and most important of all, the story. The game itself. The story develops every time I move my character. A good story is immersive, drawing you in, making you believe it, experience it. Interruptions extract you to the real world in a most unpleasant way. Books can deliver this. Books are the definition of a story. However, they can only be experienced once, until forgotten, then they can be re-read. Games last longer, as different routes can be taken, things can happen. Multiplayer is extreme replay ability. Yet books are the ones that provide the best quality. Soo immersive. A new book satisfies my primary drive perfectly. I’m an even more obsessive reader than gamer.
If you’ve analyzed my way of thinking properly, and tried arranging your own ratchets and gears in a similar fashion, you’ll see my next statement/conclusion before I say it.
There is a battery that cranks over my engine/drive to experience stories. That battery is the almost unquenchable desire to experience originality.
Please excuse me for making this post at such a late hour; all my inspiration comes when I have to do something I don’t want to do (sleep, assignment, school), and my mind reaches out, contemplating the mysteries of the mind, the universe, and the laws of nature. Why do I do so at these useless times? That’s another post, The Law of Opposition/Seperation, but I’ll explain that at another time. I got up so I could write this before I forgot it by the morning like I usually do for all my intelligent ideas.
I present here what drives me. Should I be an intricate design of gears, pulleys, switches, batteries and ratchets, I can now explain to you the engine of myself, the reaction that powers me, the force that drives me.
Lying down, failing to achieve shut down protocol (sleep people), I was thinking as usual, and my world of thought spat out this: I believe that everyone is driven by a single desire, or maybe one or two.
You may oppose this. You are probably going “what about the need/desire to eat? To socialize? To (putting it bluntly here) reproduce?” These are bodily desires in my opinion. Identical and found in all standard version 93.23 humans. The human engine however, can differ from you and me.
After reviewing my habits, I believe that the deepest level of my desire is to experience stories.
I’ll explain: I’m an obsessive game player. I love playing through games, and playing online. This is in accordance to my desire to “experience stories”. Don’t see the connection? Most games have a single player campaign. The ones I enjoy are superbly done, pleasing me with the graphics, the sound/music, and most important of all, the story. The game itself. The story develops every time I move my character. A good story is immersive, drawing you in, making you believe it, experience it. Interruptions extract you to the real world in a most unpleasant way. Books can deliver this. Books are the definition of a story. However, they can only be experienced once, until forgotten, then they can be re-read. Games last longer, as different routes can be taken, things can happen. Multiplayer is extreme replay ability. Yet books are the ones that provide the best quality. Soo immersive. A new book satisfies my primary drive perfectly. I’m an even more obsessive reader than gamer.
If you’ve analyzed my way of thinking properly, and tried arranging your own ratchets and gears in a similar fashion, you’ll see my next statement/conclusion before I say it.
There is a battery that cranks over my engine/drive to experience stories. That battery is the almost unquenchable desire to experience originality.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The begining draws nigh
To all readers, welcome to my blog! As far as I know, this may be my only post, or that all my posts are rubbish, but occasionally, my thoughts will be clear as crystal, yet as seemingly random as marbles thrown into space: you can tell where they are, but not where they're going.
The insight strikes! A philosophical side emerges! Of all the times... Why couldn't it happen earlier today during the English test! Still, spending 10 minutes of a test watching How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days isn't that bad. Didn't beat Science though. That was time spent playing CS (Counter Strike Source).
Sometimes, while talking about a random subject, I suddenly get that philosophical outlook. The Ratchets change into an incredibly efficient configuration, and everything suddenly has a prupose, and everything else is understandable. These moments don't come often, but using this blog, I will do my best to record them, and share them. You cannot declare these thoughts insane when you read them and understand them.
Which brings me to one of my random intelligent ideas... The game of winning and losing. In a shooting game, no matter what happens, there will always be a winner for every loser. Every time you die and suffer dissapointment and anger, your attacker, the person who bested you, got an equally opposite amount of pleasure and satisfaction. And vise-versa. I'm generally a winner. A conquerer/vanquisher/bastard-with-a-heli. I get pleasure and satisfaction out of winning. Many players who die frequently and repetively, constantly giving out pleasure and taking in dissapointment usually moves to another game where they can hopefully go through the proccess the other way around. These people are like me. They need the drug of success.
What impresses me are the people on a higher level who can give out pleasure and pain and recieve copius amounts of dissapointment, yet they still continue. They don't make an effort to find someone weaker whom they can reverse the process on. No, they continue fighting the better players, and reaping the losses.
How do they deal with constant disapointment, I ask myself? They do what few can. They refine the dissapointment into pleasure through the thought of supplying it to the victors. These are people who enjoy the gift of giving, and get pleasure from the thought that their enduring x amount of pain is x amount of pleasure for someone else. They endure suffering to make others happy, and through them, themselves.
The insight strikes! A philosophical side emerges! Of all the times... Why couldn't it happen earlier today during the English test! Still, spending 10 minutes of a test watching How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days isn't that bad. Didn't beat Science though. That was time spent playing CS (Counter Strike Source).
Sometimes, while talking about a random subject, I suddenly get that philosophical outlook. The Ratchets change into an incredibly efficient configuration, and everything suddenly has a prupose, and everything else is understandable. These moments don't come often, but using this blog, I will do my best to record them, and share them. You cannot declare these thoughts insane when you read them and understand them.
Which brings me to one of my random intelligent ideas... The game of winning and losing. In a shooting game, no matter what happens, there will always be a winner for every loser. Every time you die and suffer dissapointment and anger, your attacker, the person who bested you, got an equally opposite amount of pleasure and satisfaction. And vise-versa. I'm generally a winner. A conquerer/vanquisher/bastard-with-a-heli. I get pleasure and satisfaction out of winning. Many players who die frequently and repetively, constantly giving out pleasure and taking in dissapointment usually moves to another game where they can hopefully go through the proccess the other way around. These people are like me. They need the drug of success.
What impresses me are the people on a higher level who can give out pleasure and pain and recieve copius amounts of dissapointment, yet they still continue. They don't make an effort to find someone weaker whom they can reverse the process on. No, they continue fighting the better players, and reaping the losses.
How do they deal with constant disapointment, I ask myself? They do what few can. They refine the dissapointment into pleasure through the thought of supplying it to the victors. These are people who enjoy the gift of giving, and get pleasure from the thought that their enduring x amount of pain is x amount of pleasure for someone else. They endure suffering to make others happy, and through them, themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
