quasi-cogent thoughts

Given the time that I am writing this piece at, it should be by now obvious, that I cannot sleep. Something knocks, and that is thought. I cannot simply make a mental note and ask for this thought to return tomorrow, or on another day and on another occasion, when I could be more bothered. Such is not the way thought likes to be treated. Priorities aside, I continue.

Why, the question arises. A general “Why.” But not entirely without purpose. I am left hanging, no, stalling for an answer I cannot provide. Hrm. Panic? No.

Chaos. Why is it that there is so much chaos? Why is randomness chaos? It doesn’t have to be. For some it will always result in a manifested disappointment, for others it will exacerbate the joy of being alive. Or is it that simple. There are decisions that you make everyday, sometimes automatically, and sometimes with very little thought or precision of analysis. Other decisions, albeit more rare, require a greater degree of risk to be incurred, and leave one pondering for longer. It is in this latter dimension that the element of the “instinct” is introduced. Why does this intervener, this instinct, collectively assume the responsibility for throwing a “red flag,” or in other words cautioning you to “negative” a particular decision that may be before you? Is it that all your faculties have all of a sudden decided to function, and function all at once? I use all much too often in that preceding sentence. Regardless, there is a perverse oddity I wish to point out. My instinct has never failed me. At times when it fails to appear or make its presence felt, it could be implied or inferred or both, that it perhaps has given the green light. As it does not appear on certain occasions, I cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that such is the case. However, when instinct is part of the equation, the success rate is near perfect. I wish to cite Socrates, as given to us by Plato, but I am afraid I do not know where the book containing the pertaining passages is. Moving along.

This is not simply a dialogue with myself. I ask that you engage in the thought process, r if anything, at least try to ask yourself why what I just mentioned is so. For my own short answer, I give the following as evidence, although incredibly inconclusive, I have to try, for if I do not try, I would give cowardice a chance.

Throughout life there is a tendency to apply various fictions, as presented to us by our “teachers” and “educated elders,” in such a way as to restrict our own understanding of what life may be or how it may be lived. I will not even try to uncover societal implications. Isolating one variable is an already Herculean and terribly difficult task.

One such anachronistic or archaic fiction is the “accentuating of the positive” phenomenon. Daily is a myriad of randomness. Events and their consequences, as far as we are aware, arrive and leave our presence on an almost subconscious level. We see what we want to see, but that is not of importance here, as we are working within the framework of what is seen and observed, in other words custom tailored to our own filter settings.

I would be lying if I was to assert that I follow the above on a daily basis, religiously. Do people actually mean it when they say that they are optimists? When the whole world assumes someone is a cynical pessimist, do we believe “the world?”

Given that, the randomness of life is ever present and a reality to all of us, how can such an ill suited framework be workable. It is not. Each individual decision one makes is made inside their own personal framework, as defined by their own logical reasoning and experience. These decisions are made on an ad hoc basis. I’m not stretching your imagination, I’m just asserting what I observe. To make a decision is to balance or make, sometimes subconsciously or automatically, an assessment of the probable benefits and risks vis-à-vis what factual or background evidence you may have (i.e. what you know, or may infer). To say that you apply a broad or general definition or oversimplification is nonsense, a complete lie.

I am tempted to mention one more thing. “The reflection of the will back into itself.” While I know that such paraphrasing is Hegelian, and that while he may not have been the first to discuss it, he certainly elaborated on it in fascinating ways, I make it official, that I personally discounted this thinker’s logic on many occasions. The reflection of this will, your will, back into yourself is much like you standing in front of a mirror, looking at yourself and what you are wearing and being self-critical of the image you put on display for “the world” to see. It allows for reflection. I know that is an unintended pun.

But why all of this logical blah blah blah. There is reason to the madness. There is reason to the chaos. Although randomness would naturally be chaotic, paradoxically it isn’t. The ability to reflect one’s own will back into or onto itself (depends on how you conceptualize the activity), provides continuity.

By this point, you can probably tell that I’m tired. I am. The above is not complete and I don’t intend to complete it now. I will…later.

Some food for thought.


Leave a comment

Filed under philosophy, politics, rant, Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s