Recently I was asked to give my thoughts regarding this question to the class, and can say I failed in providing a coherent view (as often occurs with me and my ambiguity in describing my thoughts in person). But I’ll now present to you my fine-tuned “raison d’être” (reason for being).
Being human is to me—in exclusion of all “puffy” and “hopeful” senses here—what you make of it, and how this creation of your making interacts with others’ (almost identical) creation. From these involuntary interactions between one another follow reactions or responses to you as creature and modus (or “way of being"), and the later ensuing of miscellaneous phenomena that in combination weave together an arrangement we name “our lives” and the immediate world we live in.
Where most of us get lost and bogged in is in this fabrication of what we choose to be and why we choose to be it. People have come to assume that everything regarding an individual follows minute change but remains in conclusion static and in some way preordained; be this personality-wise, likes and dislikes, limitations and illimitable talents, or one or another family "code" or expectation passed down through generations. Many of us could not be further from the truth; and I shall reproduce my previously given reasoning for this (which I gave in my “Inspirational individual” assignment): “... that abstract concept that there isn’t one exclusive line or path life goes by, and which one person (you) follows. Just because two things aren’t compatible—[Aleister Crowley’s outlandish and eccentric ways and the basis of a youth-inspiring assignment], for example—doesn’t necessarily mean they have to be. And that one could in all instances—however pristine and unchangeable you've been lead to believe these definitions are exclusive to you—shift trajectory and be one moment a 'specific' individual (with all his or her 'unique' bequeathing), and the next moment follow the functioning perceived characteristically as pertaining to another type of person."
Being human therefore has (to me at least) nothing to do with how much I love this or that, who I choose to spend my time with, or any further interdependence. It is in fact just me in a world where I paint the painting of what is to be around the "me"—and how sound or unsound I sketch it based on whatever be it that is convenient to me at any given time, and as long as it affirms the obtaining of what it is I want/quenches my hedonistic thirst—and the experiences that arise with having to confront others that also seek (be it consciously or unconsciously, and in whichever intent) to procure what it is they want as well. Being human, and having to go through the life we've (as I've stated above) create, is about having to deal with what scenarios arise from this intense "egoism" or “Me über alles” (wish you to call it so) that is imbedded at the moment of conception into the nature of this weak beast which all of us, including myself are; and which varies not in this imbedded thing itself, but only in it its degree.
"It is not sufficient that I succeed. All others must fail." — Genghis Khan
“The concept of ‘evil’ is the product of the ability of humans to make abstract that which is concrete.” — Jean-Paul Sartre
“Ah! yes, I know: those who see me rarely trust my word: I must look too intelligent to keep it.” — Jean-Paul Sartre
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment