conundrum of mental morphological dynamics

validation (and related ideas) impedes understanding, acceptance, embracement, cohesion, connection, social evolution(?), empirical/logical processes.

apriorically and posteriorically this is a repeatable result relative to the human dynamic inclusive of cultural momentum.

why then, do persons involved in higher academia need recognition? the main reason would be one acquired through a construct established through social-based pressures and associative values: resource.  that one’s values and importances (their research or various curiosities and subjects) need resources for their respective pursuits to subsist means that a certain course of action or process must be followed.  this is dependent on the collective momentum or social standard in effect.

i discover difficulties, within me, in adapting to and adopting the required elements for the actualization of those pursuits, and respective results that fall within prominent influence of social conventions/processes.  this is not an absolute nor pathological situation; but even in knowing what needs to exist for a desired outcome, i still have to commit a high level of discipline to see a pursuit through to relative conclusion.  the general outcome is that even a high level of discipline or commitment does not affect enough change within me to realize a pursuit that overlaps or is overlapped by socially-pressured processes.

i do not "play the game" well.   i came to play chess and most everyone seems to be playing life.

my wintery vascillate flake

i have strong intuitive feelings about most(if not all) things i have considerations for. where i fall down is in the lacking of articulate established tools of reference and communication. i become, or the words and expression i share (at least in verbal/written form), less accessible or understandable because i am searching for words (sometimes having to invent new words) to describe what i feel or sense or see. if i had a better understanding of the established disciplines of interest (and the accompanying argot) then i’d not only have additional words or phrases to capture complex ideas into relatively concise forms, i would also have alternate points of view (due to the respective disciplines concerns or focus) to help triangulate what i posit.

as for consciousness and what is real or what can be known, i am open. receptive. i do have relative axioms based in empirical gatherings but i also have an equally apriorical assignment in my being. i am part action and part inaction, that is to say that i “come half way” to meet the other half of what ultimately exists to support my dynamic. of this dynamic support: my physical being and my mind are, as i see it, part of something that may, and seems to be, beyond complete or thorough understanding or knowledge. this continuum seems to have an inherent balance to it. it is a relative balance the average of which can never be known until a specific range in retrospect is examined. but i project forward an idea that there is a balance in the “universe”(of all things existent or not), my projection comes from my experience and observation and the relative dynamic i have come and continue to be by way of the variable influences of context.
this “balance” is something that, i feel, permeates all. so when it comes to thought and action i sense the balance present. i am not wedded nor do i have allegiance to my own discoveries, knowledge, actions, etc. i do apply(habitually or purposefully) responsibility where cultural memes or tact are inherently or intellectually desirable. but otherwise i see my insights or state of awareness to be in a nonstatic state. what would be considered one’s “current state”(how do you feel, what do you believe, what are you) is only a sampling of a particular segment, moment, or retrospective-average of the self. more or less, the way i see things, is that everything is in transitional flux. that something seems to not be changing or moving(whatever the considered duration may be) has not dissuaded my feelings on this perspective thus far.

therefore, my ideas are in constant reception and reflection of the “possibility mean.” thus, to all intents and purposes, i am a vacillate flake. and for those that find rhythmic sway with my own crystalline flourish there is no discord. for those not, trust flounders.

i do have difficultly taking stands(defending) on ideas since i believe in the immense latent knowledge that exists. i will argue points but mainly for the support of the integrity of the perspective i present to the relative dialogue.
i am aware of myself, but am i myself? reality seems pretty straight forward does it not? we have two hands for example. we know things. but what is knowledge? what is true? what is fact?.. and reality. and by extension, to all areas of thought, we can similarly break down the constructs of human belief. do i move in space or does space move about me? countless parallels in motion together.

i hope and venture that the above gives you good content to gain perspective of my thoughts on consciousness and related ideas.

perception

for the kind of person(artist) i am, category and staticism(buying into and indulging static-based behaviours) do not work – or should i say “bode well.” there are many artists that buy into convention. they feel they must to some varying degree. the same thing that contributes to my socially-perceived failure is the same thing that keeps my dynamic balanced. “art” may produce tangible leavings, it may not. art by social-definition is more concrete than my state of being creates. art to me is me and all. latent or realized, it is the same. for most i will be too existential or serious or perhaps something more like “explaining away or justifying that he’s not famous, professional, recognized, accomplished, or having done anything but talk and ponder.”
awareness is regardless of action or product. reality and existence are no less the same. my person can be attacked but what i present is the subject at hand and not where it comes from. reference ad hominem.

wrote

currently i am writing a lot. everyday, about things whatever. i can look to my “records” of entries into my various recorded areas (post-it note collections, moleskin pocketbooks, shell emails, etc. and there are definitely lapses in relative routine where days or months will go by with no rendering of thought, at least in written form. i find ways to extract the expressive exhaust that continually builds in my mind. whether that is through capturing imagery on photographic media or enacting more visceral mediums to commit the abstract glob in my head onto tangible supports of concrete, paper, canvas, glass, etc.
but the written expression,
it is valuable and a good addition to the extraction of expression if not the primary means. what happens to the constipated person of expression?
i think that depends on their strengths and weaknesses – their overall dynamic, attributes, and state; including all the external influences on their being.

another question in the funhouse (with reflection)

what happens when an “artist” looks in their mirror?

they "see"

question in the funhouse

who is the most familiar human on the planet?

things are until they are not (or something else)

the above "title" is what i am, a part of what i am, the whole of i am. but the madness-tangent (that is completely abstract “a point of view”) also creates something inside me that has me rendering, or committing to tangible form, the abstract. i do not do this through manufactured purpose or cause. it is an instinctive compulsion. for lack of better words or abstract communication i am an “artist.” i am made so by all that i am. being an “artist” (or what i like to refer to as “person of expression” or “expressioner” {not expressionist since that word is already taken and thus poses potential confusion}) is result, not occupation or hobby or preference. perhaps those ideas can be represented as well coincidentally. the overlap causes some muddiness or confusion to the awareness and communication of the ideas represented here or in any of my(or my the relative type of human i am a sample of) byproducts(expressive forms of the senses or sensibilities).
i am an expressioner, and i need no explanation, title, or demand understanding; however, in being a human with this expressive observatory attribute the resultant byproduct of expressive bits either in static conventional, unconventional, or recognized-convention works (but widely known and considered as “art” works), all that i am is what is. is what has come to be as a combination of all that i represent by what has contributed and influenced what has gathered(in experience or otherwise) within me.
i am a representation of element and time and evolution and eventuality conclusions, static fragments and segments falling away through change and continuum. my mental dynamic (instinct intellect and intuition – intuition being a dynamic of experience and knowledge and also where wisdom is derived from) creates me interpreter. interpreter of what i represent collectively but also interpreter of the continuum. [side note: continuum interpretations can only be experienced first-hand however, much like freshly homemade tortillas, bread, or other things with a quick oxidation, decay, or change factor.]
and so, what i create in writing, in saying, in doing, in being, is simply what is. to use a popular (but inaccurate phrase) “what needs to be.” this idea seems to apply to all humans and, ultimately, to all in known existence.
and the reason for this writing is to address questions and issues or circumstances i’ve observed. there are beliefs or perspectives that unwitting/unintentionally limit or confuse “results” with “intentions.” the results or the work or the product/byproducts are static forms or indicators (at best) of the source “interpreter.” the interpreter may be human, or nonhuman, or some type of dynamic that “produces.” understanding and specifically understanding “intention” comes from the source. the closer to the source the more direct the understanding may be.“art” is what it comes to be, whether guided by purposeful reason or intuitive feelings. art is expression, even beyond what is conventionally, commonly associated with, or accepted as “art.” “art” is a byproduct of the human dynamic. the idea of “expression,” however, lends to an attribute that transcends mere human activity. so “expression” encompasses or represents the abstract. possibility and potential are limitless there. and since humans live with the influence of the abstract (our minds being enabled with abstract thought) it would seem that static forms would not be so attractive as they have continued to be through our known and relative history, but they are. organic and changing beings perhaps like static forms because of their consistent nature and relative comforts attached to those associations.

tempered balance

on the 13th of this month i was thinking about what it is to be sane or normal. what is degenerate and pathological.
it seemed that two main themes or factors were necessary to define the average/standard/normality: 1. normal is whatever way most people act or think. and 2. normal is whatever largest group(or group with the most enforceable power) of people agree upon. this second one is subjective to what people will actively agree/act upon regardless of what they really think/feel.
what was normal 8,000 years ago is not necessarily true now, so time and possibly evolution are not a consideration to the minds in thought during the time of my observations (thus – my lifetime). though, evolution takes a lot longer to change things, cultural evolution changes much faster whether forwards, backwards, up, or down, or otherwise.
even 50, 25, or 10 years can produce much cultural or social change. the basic minds are still there. latent potential behaviours still exist. bigots, extremists, chauvinists, and revolutionaries remain, albeit dormant but the essence, the foundation is still there. these types of people make up the human “medium.” and they are a pliable malleable medium of humanity. to varying degrees dependent on their layer in or away from the core of the human average.
this majority of human kind heavily influences the area known as conscious thought. which is where culture and philosophy are; where laws and rules come from. where tact and integrity have been honed.
whether positive or negative, right or wrong, detriment or benefit it all is managed by the dynamic created by the majority rule. this is where nonsense enters. this is the madness i imagine many of my kind to have talked about in their passing*. but it is the state of things. the mind is already an abstract-laden/latent device. product of evolution as i believe it to be. some kind of byproduct of survival or necessity or a direct development of device to aid whatever it is that prompted its existence. the mind that is aware and observant, the one that never stops learning or questioning (can’t stop questioning) is a mind folded with abstract istch; tempered between considerable oblivion and planar temptations. this mind goes everywhere known to all others. not isolate, not specific, not static, this type of mind rubs boundaries clear of suit**. it is a naked skin absorbing and sensitive to all rhythms. not coarse, no course. not callous, no callus.
free of purpose and reason and so much thinkings yet bound by physical means**.

*meaning, “of life” of moments but with a touch of allusion to death
**alliteral pun on the word soot but meaning “suit” as in conventions and things worn or that wear on us
***every definition represented in this usage

establishment

an argument exists whether or not it is articulated well. debate and judicial outcomes have static purposes. beyond those agreements and parameters established, arguments cannot be won, they are reference points simply established to promote understanding, communication, and ultimately connection of human kind.

eventualities

when someone says “should be” especially “you should be,” they are ultimately referring to an ideal or a recognized convention(to whatever degree); all are abstracts. language is a tool, however, i believe there are many people the world-over that do not fully grasp the concept. they are perhaps aware of the idea of language as a tool, they may even remember it being told to them in that exact way. but the main language(s) that a person uses to communicate are a constant and thus susceptible to being taken for granted. the same could be said for the ability to breath or see, move limb, or even the state of occupation of the being we each articulate and live through. all easily forgotten because of their constant presence.
we are enabled. and in the madness of possibility we recognize the similarities, the familiarities, the relative constants, and other forms that give us the ability to connect with one another and to share-and-understand what we have become through our experiences. we connect with each other much in the same way that all matter tends to connect- and we thrive by that.

thus, how are humans-entire to react? to be? what is our “true” nature and what is false? ultimately i cannot believe in true or false, there is only “is.” “is” being the result of what we all are and continue to be. for convention and human cultures this does not admonish or provide excuse to behaviour or actions taken, it is an observation that seems to attempt to escape the confines of human fussery and controls; that is, it is my mind feeling something that is outside of what it may understand.

it is funny (makes me laugh) because i am trying to understand my own differences from others; at least in what others allow to be shared with others. i have this feeling that there is much that is hidden from general-show other than the obvious things we each keep private. for example, one of the most common things is for people to clean-house when company comes over. not just tiding up, but actual overhauls of their normal arrangement of things. once company is gone, there is the reinstatement of the old setup. what!?
we all remain separate because we each generally have a sense that only we act or behave or feel the way we do. and this is mainly promoted by the fact that we have little opportunity to observe what each other does.

the majority dominates influence over the rule. the phrase “one person can change the world” is relatively false. to better capture what i believe to be the root feeling behind this phrase, the phrase should read “one person can influence the world.” because the word “change” seems to be taken, by the average person, as meaning “substantial control” (or what i call direct influence). and i have not observed where an individual of anything has that attribute/ability. an individual only has a small percentage of influence over their actions/life. an individual entity can be afforded a position of heightened influence by the contribution of the other influences of existence thus giving the individual more apparent effect in their realized performance(actions).
reality is what we make it. in culture, or in “the group” reality is what we all agree on and live by.

harmonics and gestures

i was thinking about how other words enhance what the main ideas/words identify or represent. not that this is indicator or barometer, but that i notice that those who i find rhythm with (not implying exacting alignments but relative ones) are compelled to enhance in the same intensity as i do. not necessarily the same style or cadence but the same “warmth” “tone” or “temperature” regarding the level of intensity. and i have to say it this way because levels are abstract ideas. constructions we devise to frame segments of reality so they can be viewed for a time by our awareness.

i was also thinking about how my “relationship model” helps me to visualize the relationship of humans and this “awareness” layer i’ve found myself involved more heavily in recently. that perhaps it is not that certain humans (core “medium” of our species versus all subsequent gradated layers to the outer fringe layer(or boundary/existence/influence of our species) have a genetic statement that is ideal for the “awareness” but that they have a genetic statement that enables “phrasing” of sorts or that they have the atomic/chemical/genetic properties that enable a enhanced connection with intuition. or in other words these people, on some chemical or atomic level, are able to utilize intuition more easily/effectively. intuition meaning not only the gathering of experience-entire, that we receive in time, but the capability

this theory does better when testing what i have gathered. that there are gradated levels, that all humans have what evolution’s genetic “current” includes by default. that there are abnormalities/exceptions, to varying degrees, that change this default. that for the most part the default holds true to the medium of our species. this medium is the body that sustains our existence. a relatively “stable” vehicle that allows for the trials and tribulations of existence and survival.
so in each category we can devise there is a microcosmic presence to potentially nth degrees. the more humans in each category, the more testable the presence of these “categories within categories” or microcosm. so within the grouping of people, i or any human finds rhythm with, there may be a high variability of type present in that group. not to insult the understanding that diversity is an element of our nature. indicated by the state of our continued existence, survival, evolution. diversity is a relative and constant attribute of living creatures in our known observable space.

but this goes to explain or identify or make aware the state of variable prevalent even in those areas of human intellectual structures (laws, traditions, practices, etc.). that is that even when we think nothing is changing or is diverse, it is; and not necessarily in latent form, but perhaps not so recognizable to the indicators used in associations, labels, and conventions of the “human stable”(medium, vehicle, or main body)