Yoga Fire!

I’d be nice if everyone was equal. Nothing would make me happier than to discover that all the discrimination we’ve worked hard to cultivate as a reflex could be rendered moot by such a refined ideal. Setting aside what happy is, or how arbitrary of a goal it might be, I’m sure we can all agree that true equality would save time and money for everyone who keeps busy, and slow the passage of time for everyone trying to chillax. Everybody wins.

No more time wasted speculating what people and things might be, seeing as how all sources of perception would have to be equal. Which probably means all conclusions would be equal as well. But a conclusion means there had to be a process, which was devised with a goal in mind, which might have been envisioned after a conflict, which of course, leads to some words which mean other words which lead to further words.

Don’t worry; eventually it ends… somewhere… but it ultimately doesn’t matter, the rhetoric is malleable. Take defining a word, for example. I suppose that process could start with a dictionary, but that wouldn’t tell us anything about people, other than the dictionary editors of course. Do properly defined words completely exemplify the concepts they’re tasked to summarize? That’s a tough one… does sex look the same in each persons’ mind’s eye? I should hope not, and the catastrophic buildup of pressure caused by the deluge of smut packed behind the cyber-dike that is your modem seems to agree with me. But don’t swipe at the low hanging fruit, ask any two people to define or discuss a word for at least fifteen seconds, what are the odds they’ll tell you the same thing? With the same inflection? Same implications?

To which the obvious response is: We simply don’t have the time to go into each individual’s feelings about each individual word. But doesn’t that make the dictionary sort of like a big book of averages, or what most people would agree a word might mean? Don’t people use defined words to figure out how to describe the world? If people generally agreed on something incorrect, would the dictionary definition of that thing change? Or would peoples’ perception need to change to adapt to the definition?

Yes.

All of which is an aggravating side bar, so picking it back up at what may or may not matter, conflict seems to be a good source of ideas. It’d be great if our only conflicts were with nature and widespread survival was the singular objective, but it’s probably messier than that. Much messier. Gross even. It doesn’t even have to be something obvious, like greed or belligerence, nature itself pits us against each other. Oops, I mean… emotions. Wait, no I don’t, because it’s easier to admit that each throb of our love muscles can be traced back to a bizarrely complex mating dance designed to hook our future us’ up with super powered DNA. Damn convoluted animals...

This is all speculation, but one thing I will universalize is the human need to create something. People who don’t create seem to have motives that bug the living daylights out of me. Again, just an opinion, but proof can be found in the correlation between a lack of posts on this site and a staggering rise in self-loathing.

So I’ll go ahead and guesstimate that most of the conflicts are human-to-human, whether real or imagined. Natural order has its place even in civilization; it just twists itself into more deceptive forms. Being the richest, or the strongest, or the super-flyist is meaningless to the individual; the meaning is derived from external sources. So survival of the fittest turned into domination and servitude, leaders and followers, bosses and employees, pimps and hoes, and so on. Must have been all that pesky surviving we did as a species, and once people learned that groups lead to less death and bigger groups include the added bonus of increased stuff and power, they started being ashamed by their individuality. I knew cities were a bad idea…

No… no scratch that, maybe living longer is better. I guess I’m supposed to be throwing together some elaborate tool designed to manipulate rhetoric at will while dazzling the eye, but that wouldn’t be the truth. The truth is… nihilism seems to be a series of realizations designed to change the way cognition digests language. Once you fix your digestion, all those runny, diluted ideas that used to take days of mulling and stress to pass, the ones you haplessly fling at your peers every time the media plasters sensationalist crap all over our screens, concentrate themselves into potent pellets of fortified wisdom. Not to mention that healthy shade of chestnut. Don’t act like you don’t know what I mean.

Just kidding, of course, nihilism is nothing. It doesn’t exist. You didn’t read anything. It’s not an answer to a question (that no one would have asked anyways); it’s a state of mind, exactly like the one you’re using to interpret these words. It’s a process that’s only as potent as its user.

If you’re still not reading, then let me assure you that nothing has a purpose, but only if it encounters a different purpose. Any purpose, really, and I’m pretty sure that second purpose, whatever it may be, is actually nothing. Not that it won’t attempt to convince you of its legitimacy… ever since that damn inversion of morality, talk seems to have more uses than action when it comes to domination and servitude.

This is one of the reasons communication fails when the humans try to accomplish something as a group; it’s almost always swapped out for argumentation. All it takes a microscopic push to prevent people from reaching any kind of mutual understanding. Nearly everyone is ready to throw up their guard and prevent thoughts from penetrating the beliefs and ideals that brains seem to devise involuntarily. Why do people need them?

No. Sorry. We’re not talking infinity today.

Oh man… this is tough to endure… ok I give up, the problem is language. It’s a terrible thing, pathetic really...

Just a belief though, you can tell by the way I’ve used far too many words to attempt to describe it. I’d like to focus my efforts on devising some kind of method for Nihilism, so here it is: Don’t believe in something, believe in somebody. Humans are more interesting than concepts anyways.

And no dead people, alright? Necrotheism is creepy. I’m looking at you beliefists…

Addendum: I’ve violated my own logic so many times with this post I feel dirty. The kind of dirty that your dog feels when he wallows in mud. Maybe the guilt I know I’ll feel later makes the act that much more enjoyable… but rest assured this was purposeful, as I’ll hopefully be able to dismantle and destroy these beliefs I’ve devised, thus achieving my goal of reaching… some kind of nirvana of nothingness? Guess we’ll find out.

| 0 Comments

~The Vagrant