As you, invisible reader person, probably know already, I am a bit of a nutter.
My mind has a proclivity to question things beyond what any reasonable person would question. And last night (two nights ago, I forgot to publish this mess as it occurred), I had an insomniac attack where my brain would not shut up.
In an attempt to cleanse my self from my self, I got out of bed, and I wrote down all the nonsense ceaselessly pealing inside of my head, in the vain hope that, if it existed on my laptop, my mind would be satisfied. And so it would let me sleep.
This post then, is a stream of (un)consciousness, written at about 3am. It doesn’t make much sense, but I don’t want to edit it, as I want to keep it as raw and pure as possible, so to demonstrate exactly how my mind works when it’s not working, and being dysfunctional.
This nonsensical post is written with respect to what this blog is fundamentally about:
Here we go.
If everything boils down to a perception, how can we define facts absolutely? Does there exist such a thing as an objective reality? If nothing is absolute, then by equation, the idea that nothing is absolute is thus not absolute, and so this leaves room for absoluteness. This in turn means that an objective reality, may or may not exist.
Following this, would it not be astute to assert that, considering the laws of nature present themselves to us in intelligible, and consistent ways, can it be said that these laws are absolute, given their consistency? Do they have to be absolute to justify their consistency? What does it mean if something is irrefutable? Is anything irrefutable?
If 1 + 1 = 2, then what does one orange plus one apple equal? Two pieces of fruits? Why can’t such a simple equation be correctly applied to such simple universal matters? What is 1? What is 0? Is 0 the same as infinity? Can infinity exist in the realm of space-time, or is it a mere conception contrived from connecting dots that don’t realistically connect? What purpose does this conception serve? What is reality other than a conception? If reality is a conception, and it is thus unique for every person, but ultimately the same for every person, which one prevails: it’s uniqueness or its sameness? Can both prevail simultaneously?
If the human consciousness is limited by its own self, how can we be so sure of what we think we know to be true? Does not that in and of itself show that reality is multi-dimensional, within this one, humanly perceived dimension? What is a dimension?
What are morals? Are they mere guidelines, dictating to us how we should live our lives? Are they relative, or univseral? If they are no more than a conception, how can they be defined universally? If they exist relatively, why should we speak of them? What point can it serve? How can a conceptual moral framework remain absolutely if concepts are existent in and of themselves only relative to other concepts?
If I worked my whole life without getting paid, can I be said to have had a productive life? What if I have gotten paid without working? What does it mean to be productive? Can I be productive by doing nothing? What does it mean to do nothing? Is not doing nothing, inherently doing something? If I am procrastinating one thing, am I not doing another?
What is nothing? Is nothing to be defined in the light that physicists have coined it? What do physicists mean when they speak of empty space? And if most matter is composed of empty space, why does anything mean anything? Does nothing mean anything?
If everything is inherently meaningless, then how can meaning be derived relatively? Is relativity a mere concept to highlight one ultimate truth? If that one ultimate truth is composed of many relative truths, then can it really be said to be one? If a concept is imbued within another concept, but the two concepts inherently disagree with each other, but make sense on their own, which truth stands?
Does truth mean anything? What is truth? How can we define truth if it is innately defined relatively? Is a relative truth defined by the extent to which it is true against other so called relative truths? What if this extent of truth measures up relatively true against one truth, though has its truth negated by another relative truth?
Humans-are-commonly-insomniacs. Maybe the reason we’re all collectively, generally, so angry, is because we don’t sleep properly?