Well, clearly, as my lack of poss surely gives testament to the title, I have had a lackluster track record with maintaining this blog. Can it even really be considered a blog anymore? It's pretty much devolved to a site where I random post bits and blobs and incoherent rants intermittently as I remember that it exists. This project has become my one time pet python, Artex. I would often forget about him as well, but not to the point of death. I always managed to keep him fed, since he didn't need to eat but once every couple of weeks. I just didn't familiarize him with social skills and the feeling of being played with on a daily basis, as such he revolted against me and slithered off into the sunset one day. Luckily the internet can't just slide away from me, it's far too massive.
Anyway, I have been writing, and meaning to post them here but just haven't gotten around to it in the last six weeks. As such, and rather than bombard one post with a shitload of words that would lead to TL;DR I will, over the course of the next few days or so, disperse these ramblings. What follows is an untitled string of thoughts I had a while back and expounded upon, polishing them and making them seem slightly more intelligent yet intelligible. Read, don't read, it's all the same. In fact, I contend more people will not read this than will, which is nothing new for me.
There is an old proverb about shoes that people like to throw around now and again when they feel the need to express disdain with another’s actions. Everyone has heard it, more than they would have liked, and most, if not all, simply disregard this antiquated piece of historical wisdom as nothing more than a saying that people throw around. Some people may take this in stride, or even to heart, but that is not to say that this particular piece of knowledge is good or even true. Like many old sayings, this adage is just that.
“Before you judge someone, walk a mile in their shoes.”
Now, as colloquialisms go this one is seemingly sound -- don’t rush to a conclusion before you know the tribulations of someone. And that’s a relatively nice sentiment for an idyllic society. Except that there is no idyllic society. So really this wisdom, for what it’s worth, is less about sympathy and more about stealing shoes. And although that train of thought has been played out by the sarcastic smart asses of the world, there really is no other way to spin this piece of antiquity. Or is there?
We have all been taught that theft of other people’s property is wrong. When we are but wee lads and lasses, dribbling down our chins and shitting on our asses, there are numerous adult type persons telling us the rights and wrongs of every day societal expectation. Don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t be a dick, don’t have bestial thoughts about your neighbor’s donkey or wife. Pretty basic stuff given that those things seem to be large in scale and thus are easier ideas to which to adhere. The broad strokes of life are typically ideas and concepts which are devoid of emotional involvement, making them easier to grasp and follow. After all, nothing is difficult when you have no grasp of feelings or emotions.
Feelings, from an early stage, are much easier to comprehend and understand than emotions. Feelings, by and large, stem from a sort of built-in systemic notion that those people around are comfortable, non-threatening, safe. Being able to feel safe and comforted is often the first thing people notice within themselves as people. Feelings, much like the broad strokes, require no output or reciprocity from the receiver in terms of expectation. Emotions, on the other hand, once they are introduced through repetitious feelings are much more difficult. Emotions require planning, they require interaction with other people, require confrontation of one’s own shortfalls. Emotions, in short, suck the life out of humanity and force feed right into poor cognitive and logical ability.
It is true that a life devoid of emotion is no life at all. Emotions provide an interaction with others that can take place on a deeper level and allow people of various backgrounds to become involved and invested in the well being of society as a whole. Therefore, it is fruitless and asinine to attempt to deride emotions as inhibiting the betterment or continuance of a functioning society.
Insomuch that society exists, one cannot argue that point. That society is functional is little more than a marginal assumption that people in general have the ability to produce results comparable to progressive action. However, that is not to say that society as a whole does not progress or produce resultant action. Every action is capable of producing some type of reaction; everyone knows this fact thanks to
or some old dead guy making up the rules as he floated through life. And these reactions will, typically, have the quality of being opposite and equal to the initial action imparted upon them. Therefore, to say that society is incapable of function is at best a fallacy notwithstanding. Newton
But to say that society lacks function would be a fair statement given that the basic idea behind a function is that a positive result is produced. While many actions are capable of yielding a positive reactionary, there are countless others that give way to a negative end, and this impedes and inhibits the connotation of functionality altogether.
For example, let us say that someone, anyone, were to see fit to commit an heinous act; something like sexual assault of a child. This action, obviously, is not something that, in and of itself, would ever be considered acceptable or good. Thus it would follow that the outcome and reaction of such an action would therefore be negative, both for the aggressor and the victim, not to mention those not directly involved but directly affected thereby. Granted this example is somewhat esoteric but will serve its purpose.
Now this act, deplorable and vile, is nevertheless something chosen for a specific purpose. Such purpose cannot be fully known or understood by those outside the situation itself, but can be speculated against in order to take a better understanding of the why, moreover to make people feel more at ease or more riotous. For even though one may not agree with the action taken, the fact that it happens exists and, by virtue of the nature of life, produces reaction. More often than not, the resultant reaction is one of disgust, at least insofar as those outside the direct action are concerned. But what about the reaction this causes to those within the action; on the front lines.
For the aggressor, the result would be, most likely, that of exceeding happiness and excitement. The entire idea behind such a violently brazen action speaks to this end. Control over another being’s vitality and sanity is a powerful feeling indeed. From the first taste to the last, this control is something that must continually be fed and exercised regularly to maintain a homeostatic balance within the aggressor’s own mind. More or less, this action is little more than a disease which can never be quelled.
Unfortunately, though not for such an aggressor, the result is often that the victim in such instances becomes unsettled and distrusting of all humanity. And this reaction grows and spreads throughout the course of a lifetime, impacting numerous people along the way; drags others into the personal hell created by someone that may be unknown to them. Because of this initial reaction, which then would constitute an all new action as seen by outside entities, the world in general spirals into a deep mistrust of itself. And through this comes apocalypse.
So many people are afraid of this word, or what it might bring, and no one knows for sure if such an event may happen at all. The traditional connotation of apocalypse is such that people decry the complete destruction of the world as humanity knows it, fire and brimstone and inconceivable horror. And this very well may be true. The world may one day decide not to exist anymore and commit suicide, taking along with it all of humanity and various other living creatures. Certainly this would be, presumably, a very bad event. But is this the only way one should view an apocalypse, through the eyes of death and destruction and nihilistic self-loathing at the potential, indeterminate future failure and breakdown? If an end is nearing and death coming for all, should not we make precautions? Perhaps. Then again, perhaps this impending apocalyptic event has already happened for many and those who are wailing about the end of the world have yet to experience it.
By definition, apocalypse is a catastrophic failsafe for the world at large, a cessation of life, liberty, and free internet porn. Once the end begins it becomes difficult to stop and nothing or no one is safe from harm and certain death most horrible. Cheerful stuff. And of course there are any number of religions, people, or non-entities that lay claim to the fact that apocalypse is imminent and that all humanity should prepare to die. No one, according to these ancient beliefs and prophecies, will be able to outrun, out play, outlast an apocalypse; once the end is upon us, we are all fated. Hold on tight and hope that it goes quickly. Wait, wait, wait, die. That is what is being told us. Although humanity is capable of producing amazing inventions, cures, or massive erections, there is nothing that matters because in the end we will all fall to the apocalypse.
So, in essence, we are all fucked. No matter what we do, say, think, or attempt, there is no outrunning our certain doom through a cataclysmic event beyond our control. Or is there? If the word apocalypse is defined, truly, by that which we know and accept it, there is no hope. But what if the way in which humanity views the word apocalypse is not that which was intended at all from whence the word was coined? Maybe, just maybe, the translation of the word apocalypse has become so skewed through the ages that the original intent has been lost in the muddled world of confliction and religious zeal. Could not the word apocalypse simply have been meant to lay implication to individual or cultural end times?
Certainly the world has bastardized linguistic meaning before, humanity does not span eons without a few fuck ups. Revolutions, crusades, petty arguments over sports laws, the
, these things are arguable as fuck ups. Granted none of the examples given fall within the realm of linguistics, but if there can be such massive failure attributed to human stupidity, clearly language barriers will play some part. So would it not be plausible then, that the translation of the word apocalypse, from its origin, could have been misconstrued to imply the end of the world at large rather than its intended purpose of conveying the death of one’s own world? Jersey Shore
That such is the case is not certain, but can be argued. Events in life are often boiled down to two major categories – good and bad. The world is not so simple that all events or decisions should fall into such neatly lined boxes, but often this happens. So, let us say that someone has an event occur in their life that shatters that which they have known and to which they have grown accustomed. For sake of argument, let us say this event is the death of a dearly loved close relation. Death is bad, m’kay. It means that biological and cognitive functions have ceased to exist within the confines of a fleshy pile of humanity.
For those left in the wake of such a death, this event seems to cause their once pristine world full of puppy farts and rainbow shards to come to a devastatingly crashing halt. Nothing matters anymore, beauty is gone and the one-sidedness of life becomes a stark reality. Once someone transverses the pathway from living to dead, grief and sadness hit, sometimes debilitating those who are left picking up the pieces of their once beautiful life. Often times, those that remain feel so empty and destitute that they claim their world has come to an end. Apocalypse now, baby.
This is not the only apocalypse that occurs in such a given situation though. Most people are so consumed with narcissism and grief that they fail to even realize that things have become much worse for the person who is actually dead. Obviously, if one is no longer living, the world is at an end for whom the bell tolls and the sun has set. Clearly death is an end to one’s world as there is nothing left to live for. Could this not be the apocalypse of yore, the one that has become mistranslated and used extensively and wrongly to decry the end of the entire world instead of personal atrocity? Of course, every end brings to bear a new beginning; something cathartic to enamor the masses and take focus off the apocalypse just experienced. Most often this includes, whether for better or worse,
Wide-eyed and fresh from the vagina, children are often seen as a second chance at life; a reincarnation of lost hopes and dreams in a society long of tooth. In some ways, children are the future. In other ways, however, they most assuredly cause apocalypse. Sure they smell nice, for the six hours before they shit themselves, and the innocence they have is infectious, but children are nothing but trouble. In a world that is renowned for cyclical existence, children are the replacement adults. The worst part is that children are not even remotely apologetic about stealing people’s life force. Children only care about themselves, about eating, sleeping, and shitting on everything they can get their nasty little asses positioned over. Because they are seen as cute, no one seems to care that another person met their demise just so the little parasite could be born. And while all currently vital adults have been children before, conversely all children have been adults at some point.
This argument, of course, smacks of intonations of Hindu beliefs which can obviously be seen by many as controversy in the world religious circles depending on which side you happen to align yourself. Disregarding personal feelings and religious belief, things that will influence decisions and further beliefs, and taking into account a base scientific principle, surely the idea of a reincarnate physicality must be given some merit. Basic thermodynamic theorem, and universal law, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, ergo and thereby, the apocalypse of a person must itself also give way to a new/re-birth. If for no other reason than people, as they exist both in physical and mental, thus loosely spiritual, capacities are endless bundles of mass and energy the idea of reincarnation must be plausible in some facet.
One in, one out.
And yet, the gears are grinding, they are being felt with full weight. Undoubtedly, there are thoughts and cries about the exploding population; a problem which, indeed, is being felt the world over. As it stands now, the population is nearing 7 billion, more and more births without a concurrent and identical death rate. However, just because human population is exploding, that does not disprove the above thought, and for one simple reason – stars. Stars are dying throughout the galaxies, as they will often do once, like humanity, their lifespan has reached penultimate conclusion. Luckily, or unluckily depending on your view, humanity as a whole is the beneficiary of the recycled energy, and as such, population booms. Which then, through a long tangential strain, brings us back to the original point about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. Regardless of personal feelings, or even events in life, there is no reason to need to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes because, at some point during this cyclical life, every person has been in someone else’s shoes whether cognizant of the fact or not.