Friday, 27 April 2007


I am writing this blog immediately after telling someone that I don't write a blog. Why? Well, because in my opinion, blogs are for people whom life has no meaning outside their computer screens. A generation of individuals who are so captured and incapacitated by binary, that life becomes a series of meaningless decisions of compulsion. Perhaps, it is the best approach.

Of course, I do I have a blog. I am part of that generation; I am an individual who has conveniently forgotten his impending mortality.

I was considering a month or two ago the 'realization' of self. I will paste what I wrote in, since I wrote in only in notepad.

This is a cautious attempt at writing when I'm under the influence. I said cautious, but I meant reluctant.

Reluctant, as I have really no clue what to write about. This evidently will not be the best I have ever written. Also, I am under no pretension of being highly creative during this mind-altered state. I said pretension, I meant illusion...I think.

I think therefore I am. Really?
Who am I? Why am I me? These two sentences in the interrogative may sound cliched and dull but I'm inclined to ask. Perhaps it is because only recently have I found what the true meaning behind this question is. As a theist, these questions are quickly ignored. However, during atheism: this question is indeed most troubling. Questions about why I am 'I' and not that table. 'I' inevitably seems to be an entity. A being, a reality of knowing thyself's existence that is beyond the purely physical. But I don't mean physical strictly in terms of materialistic fundamentality; instead, I mean physical in terms of determinism.

Arthur Miller, believed that he would live on after he died. At that time, I dismissed him as a believer of some sort. But I can see now, that due to this ontological discrepancy. This consciousness. He could be right. Because 'I' is a concept that challenges equality amongst creatures of the earth. For example, I am I, and not my best friend. Why? What does it mean to be me? What are the specifications? I'm somewhat embarrased at asking these oft-asked-ill-meant, questions. But the reader must understand that there are two states of minds which one can ask these questions. One, in which you see yourself as a product of purely deterministic universe (with some randomness); or two, in which you see yourself as a realisation of being. That is, more existentially. Perhaps, this will not help my readers at all. The only point that I would like to get across here is that these are not rudimentary questions. They stem out of a realisation that is extremely difficult to articulate. Likewise, these questions are not able to be answered, since they are not valid questions due to their false articulation.

I digress.

I do acknowledge that the piece above is not very informative. Articulation is a difficult endeavour. But I was thinking today as well, existentially of course, about the state of an individual. The state of being, the state of a real recognition that 'one will die'; I can't do it. It seems the only way to really live life, and not be stuck in the triviality of everyday proceedings is a recognition that one's time is limited. The things that worry us are the very things that should not be worried about; these false aspirations, these false truths, these true lies...

The aim of life is not to be content. However, it should at least be recognized that one/I am not a puppet distraught by the strings of society. That the 'I' which I have spoke of before should be acknowledged to the 'I', that is, to own's consciousness.

Not at all clear. But, what is? (I know you're not supposed to start a sentence with a conjunction)


No comments:

Post a Comment