Gathering Against The Tide

Way to go pal for doing it solo.

Does it take a mass of followers to change something? Enough about the science, but let us talk basics.





Are we always entitled to the right to have a group of people following our orders as though it was a matter of life and death? For one, it does feel like going against the flow, the rhythm, the order of things.


Yikes, there are flaws in that statement. Feel. Flow. Rhythm. Order of things. For a sceptic, is there such a thing as a flow? And how do we feel? Painfully, one has to admit that it is not easy to feel. Our consciousness lets us think many things like feel and flow with the rhythm.


What are chances of us failing? No, more importantly, why do we not think otherwise? There is no obligation to not 'feel' and not 'flow' with the usual tone. But we are constantly being forced into something that is both ambiguous and opaque.


Alas, the contradiction is always there. Relate it somehow, opposition always comes with everything that moves. Essentially, if there is no opposition, then we can safely proclaim: "We are history."




The point you may ask? Cliche. The reason? Predictable. It does sound like defeat to something superior, but there is nothing, nothing more than we can possibly fight. But who knows for certain, though?

Unrelenting Realism

Are we meant for survival? 

Sure, we point to all kinds of ideas to prove that we are somehow made to survive. Then again, what if that sense of anxiety, of guilt, of realism appears suddenly? 


Obviously, one should be much aware of the defense mechanism. Our ingrained being of repelling notions that we are weak. Simply put, we do not want to 'feel bad'. 


So what happens then? Should we manage our stressful 'feelings', we should face a new problem: realism. Subjective? Of course not! But its objectivity can be more than we bargained for, sometimes. We want to be real. Yet we tend to oppose realism. It is a theoretical paradox, dogged by uncertainty. 


Being realistic is want we human beings should look for, but most of the times, who cares? We just want to survive... hence the opposition to total realism. 




Well, should we be discouraged then? Fortunately, we need realism, which breeds acceptance.

It hurts. And it is real.

Kickbacks.

Analyse all we want, but are there any kickbacks?




Of course there is. The moment we start thinking is the moment our thoughts start to repel. Why? First, we should see how. And what the hell is a kickback?


Substantially, when we try to incorporate something (new) into our minds, like a form of knowledge, do we immediately accept it? Do we immediately repel it? Do we do anything at all?


Well, frankly, does it matter any more? This new generation of minds in the New Age has proven that our ways of thinking have differed. Thanks to modernisation, we have progressed, it should be fair to say. Instead of instincts, we have differentiated subjectiveness. So what does this relate to?


But are we settled? In other ways, can we still progressed? Are there any perks to it? Are there no perks to it? But alas, the mind does not view things as perks. Or wants, desires. Well, at least, not entirely.


Whether we choose it or not, sooner or later our thinking changes, but remains on the same goal. The same aim, reference point, path to some kind of mindset that keeps us all mindfully humanistic.


Still, wouldn't it be a tad too dry? A tad too simplistic? Now this is where the kickback begins. We oppose, and therefore we think. Is that how we think nowadays? Oppose?

Sure we can.

 

Feeding The Ghosts

Are we sustained?

See a shrink!

No, wait, that is probably not the ideal word. Is there a part of us that warrants our attention, constantly? No, I am not talking biology here, just, as always, the mind.

Consciousness is vague when it comes to this point. We feel compelled to do something, therefore our mind is telling us to react to it. Should we? Is it bad? Is it good? What if we look at this without looking at the pro-cons bias? Just analyzing to be precise.

Still, would there not be a different consciousness now? Another compelling thought? Alas, this is where we should pacify. We pacify our minds' thoughts, but not, never illusions.But why though? Why not just pull out? Why must we revert to our basic thoughts, i.e. our instincts?

We are animals with a higher consciousness. But that argument seems a tad flawed, because that would mean human beings who revolutionize do just that by having a 'higher' consciousness? Seems unfair. And worse, discriminating to the weak. Or weaker. Or weakest. Chances are, we are all weak in the mind of the 'higher' consciousness.

So do we feed that 'higher' consciousness? Hard to say, all we need is a compulsion.

Get Going, But Slowly...

At some point, we get desperate. Sure, you might say, "I ain't got time to bleed...". But sorry tough guy, we tend to fall into the same trap. One way or another. Solipsistic or not.

Is there a balance in our minds? Yes, there is. That 'equilibrium' which we tend to move ourselves towards ever so lightly, day by day. If we are mad, we trudge back to normal. If we are happy, we get back to normal. So what is normal? Subjectively, we might or might not control the measure of 'normal'. But objectively, who knows?

Still, we do not know why. Or whether there is such a balance. One might think that balance can be delicate, tough or just plain rogue. To address that balance simply requires a push of some sort. In other words, weaken our minds, but respond by strengthening it again.

Missing the point? Yes, I agree. Is there such a thing as a 'balance'? Frankly, there might be one for the reason of wanting to think so. If we think there is something we refer to while trying to mentally gauge ourselves, then there is. But should we not accept it, hey, there is always consciousness.

The point is... balance, people, balance. Complacency, optimism, pessimism, pride, repetition. Who knows? We are already hanging by a thread.