It is not important why it is, only that it is.
If you would be gone or I would be instead, then no words of old poets, no word of wisdom or mathematical assumption can bring us back.
I don’t need to know why you are and how it was possible.
What I want to know is, how you might feel and be would you be able to enjoy life, without the fear of others or yourself.
If there is one thing I don’t need to know, then it is how life came to be. I simply say, it always was and will be.
The more others want to understand it, the less they know, the less they see it. The more you search for life, the further away you walk.
Why does there always have to be a winner or a loser? There is no meaning in it, only hate and dispair.
If there is a game to play out of joy, out of fun. You can beat the other one or get beaten, but afterwards no one really lost or won. It was the challenge, the fun, the gambling with each other. One day you beat me, the next I beat you and if not, then maybe the third time. When you really play or work in a team, you never push and never pull.
If you expect a team to work in a certain way or try to control it, the team won’t work as it could or should. It would work out of fear of judgement, out of pressure and competition. And then you have no team at all.
The word “team” or the invention of so called “teamwork” is a poor and painful joke when you see through natures eyes. Even natures creatures are not always following, maybe because they got scared as well?
When people work together out of intuition and the will to live, spreading love and joy and make things better, you don’t need teamwork.
You may ask: “But they obviously are working in a team then, so it is teamwork.”
And maybe by some words and definitions of obviously high intellect and meaning, this might be correct. But then comes a little child and does everything they did, just alone. Now how do you call that?
Maybe childwork? Or child labour?
The word work is another great invention I can’t really imagine to be still in use. Of course for stories and amusement I would say, you can still use it, but the word never was the problem.
I could say, that writing things here was “a lot of work” and depending on the understanding of “a lot of work” or “work” itself, this might be true. I would prefer to describe it as a mixture of feelings, hope, depression, intuition and the simple, but important fact, that I couldn’t stop writing, when I once started (again).
When I would get paid for writing here, then I could of course for the moment say, that I have some income and aren’t living on behalf of my mother who goes to work. I could for the moment, say, that I am working. But what would I say, when there wouldn’t be a concept of work as an usually painful or stressful unwanted act or escape from other problems?
Then I would have to describe it as something I either want to do by choice or intuitive actions or reactions. And when we are talking about that, then it is nothing you will ever be able to learn, study or fully understand. Because it is way too simple for that.
It is like describing the necessary act of setting a “.” (dot) at the end of a sentence.
You woulld probably say: “There has to be a dot, so we can separate one sentence from the next one.”
Or you would say: “If we wouldn’t have a dot at some point, then reading the sentence would be exhausting.”
Eiter way, you would probably come up with a plausible or reasonable explanation for the importance of a dot at the end.
The thing is, what would happen, if I would just stop
And now I started a half open sentence without a dot at the end of the previous one;
Oh and now I used another symbol, another one, and …
Now, of course there could be a meaning behind setting these symbols and there surely is always a meaning. At least for some people and I know, that as long as you do it, everything is fine, but when you don’t use them, people get upset or confused.
For example the “…” (triple dot / three dots) symbol or expression, sometimes misleading, misinterpreted and confusing.
At least for me personally and maybe other people as well. Still I use it often and others as well. But sometimes I catch myself using it too often or others using it in a nother context, which is not fully clear to me.
When I use it, I often try to express an emptiness I try to fill without words. Sometimes I use it as some kind of “throwing a question into the room” or a hopeless trial to find someone who tells me something cheerful, instead. I also used it to express a level of confusion, irritation and sometimes maybe shame or guilt. And sometimes it is just a word you don’t say, but people or at least some people know what it would be. Sometimes I added a “You know” or “You know what I mean” afterwards. In a trial to find a “Yes” or “Yep…”. In a trial to get a similar response or at least an undersranding expression. Instead I would have to give it to myself, which then leads to even more of these “…”, since obviously not many responses come. But it is no wonder, since it is hard to say or in this case, write a word, when there is someone non-stop talking or writing.
This way I am left with such an amount of dots, that I sometimes just have to sum them all up and then you get these things
Expression neither morse code, nore a specific word, such a big load of rmptiness or sadness and a feeling of loneliness.
I sure sometimes used dots or other symbols to actually disguse a word or other meaning, but it is interesting enough, how such few, small and little things can express so many things. Or at least when I use them or read them. But then I also see them in a seemingly positive context and then I wonder. Did I get it wrong, is it a positive expression as well and I just didn’t get it? I get confused and question the usage of dots behind words.
What would happen if I would simply write and write and never stop the sentence or set a comma or any kind of sytax appropriate smybol which should make clear where to take a breath when to switch to the next sentence when to forget the previous one and where to think and where to laugh
Is it even a question without a question mark question mark
I think the problem of the written word lies within the need for it. Both the written words and the symbols and expressions separating it.
You know, I don’t know where and when exactly these symbols and expressions came to be. Otherwise I would have to have invented it myself or wittnessed it first hand, which then probably would make me the oldest man alive. At least from the modern point of view and the believe of “long” life, when life has the need to end and therefor a “longer” one is more impressive. Shame on you, if you thought something dirty along the lines.
For me it of course makes sense, when you set certain symbols or have a specific amount of words within one sentence. (Says the guy who sometimes writes sentences across multiple lines, without correct syntax and sometimes complicated connections, so the reader forgets what it started with.)
The written word is only necessary, if you can’t find another way of communication or want to “carve in stone” what you once thought. Like I do right now with this and the other posts. If for example I could just show you my “thoughts” or give them to you in another way, then I would do that. Because writing is interesting and also distracts me from negative feelings a little, but it won’t really stop them.
What stops them is knowing that you or someone else might read these lines and then could possibly write some of their own. Or even find a “home” within my words.
But then it isn’t about the words themselves or the syntax, the writing rules and concepts of old and modern writing. No, then it simply is, that there was a human or other being sharing something wih others. And not only sharing, but deeply trying to express feelings, thoughts and emotions. The important factor is, that there is always something “random”, an unpredictable note or tone within it.
And here goes the problem with thought and action. As long as you think, that you have to find a perfect line, a perfect word, then you will never write something of importance. The worst part is, that it will still be seen as such. But not because it is important or special, only because of the readers view. And we have many different kinds of readers as we have writers and thinkers and all there is. So there will for sure be some people who will read a three or four-hundred pages filled with different variations of numbers related to shapes and concepts. It might even be useful for some.
Then there is someone who just writes a diary, not thinking much of it, only to publish it later, maybe with a few changes here and there. And all of a sudden is important, although while writing the thing, they probably felt pretty miserable, average or just like a loser.
What makes it more important to read a book version of a diary from someone you might never meet in person, compared to a collection of books filled with mathematical shapes and shades of all kinds, describing the universe, building technics, concepts of machines and improvement strategies?
Maybe it is the so called “human factor”, in case I didn’t make this word up, which I surely didn’t. I rather catch a cold than making words up, since these days we already have enough words, but even more of this cold. And it gets colder and colder each day, at least I would say. But maybe it is only as cold as the thought of it. Like heat can also make you freeze and ice burn.
Not only in a poetic way of expressing feelings about love and loss.
Why should or would I care about you, a stranger for the most part? You could betray me, could hurt me and make me suffer. You could also hate me, destroy me or make me wanna die even more.
So why should I even talk to you, write to you or look you into the eyes?
I have heard stories in which people got killed for a look in the eyes or a wrong word out of innocence or a misunderstanding.
So if just such simple actions could bring people to murder someone, why should I write a whole collection of words, knowing that just a few of them would and could be my end?
The answer is as simple as it is complicated. – I am already dead.
I will explain why it is simple: I am dead because although I am breathing, have a beating heart and sitting here, typing, I still have a deathwish and know that I am still dying. So therefor I am already dead, in case it doesn’t or would’t stop at some point.
But it is also complicated because I am more alive than ever, knowing that I am already dead. This means, that no matter what happens, I wouldn’t be able to die, I could only come to life (again). It makes no sense, when for you the concept of life means “to be” and the concept of death would mean “not to be”. So if you separate life and death out of the observation of physical death, you don’t see the possibility of mental, psychological and emotional death, besides other forms of it. As well as other forms of life. Although for my taste the forms and variations of life outnumber death clearly. At least the reasons to think about the reasons for life. Reason for reason…
(Three dots, oh no, this can’t be good)
You know, it is pretty sad and to be honest, very depressing, to see people argue about the reason of life and basically anything within it.
I could for example draw a line across the Mona Lisa, the original to be precisely. I mean, I of course would first have to get it or atleast be able to reach it, but I could theoretically draw a line across it. Either across the whole painting or just her mouth or her whole face, maybe.
And besides that I then would have destroyed art of immense value and also and old masterpiece of a master who was one of a kind, I would have also made myself a criminal. I would have destroyed art, ruined a masterpiece and not to forget the value it had. What a dissaster you might think. But what if we would just focus on the act or resulting visual expression? What would you see?
Someone might see a crappy drawn line and that I used a blue color and a pencil for left-handers. Someone else might see that the line is in an angle between 38-44° compared to the shape of the face and the surroundings.
Others could say, that I am simply crissing out her face, her mouth. Her smile?
There would be probably hundreds of people trying to explain and argue about the meaning of the line. But I simply wanted to express, that no one cared for the Mona Lisa, the woman who was shown. And also no one really got behind the painter and what he did besides this painting. Okay, some people know, but it still is not really important for most people. Why? Because it was a long time ago. But when you really take the time to look at the numbers, then it only was a few hundred years from today. Many trees have lived longer and a few might to this day, although I assume that most of these old giants, if not all, already got harvested for wood and profit or other more important reasons.
To be fair, I don’t know if this picture / version of the painting was altered besides the speech bubble, but it will surely do the job.
Maybe thus version is better after all.
Do you know why?
Well, for me it is more important to look on the whole picture and not just the smile or face. What do they both have in common? Besides the smile…
You see a landscape in the background. It seems to be a river or at least some water, rays of sun or maybe even the sun itself. There are mountains and trees and maybe even fields and a snail like road going towards it.
The landscape nearer to the painter and therefor the woman sitting there, seems brown, dry and not too colorful after all. The head of the woman is where the landscape seems more natural, colorful, blue, green, yellow. Almost like red, blue, green, but this would be RGB, the color code for digital colors. So yellow instead of red. To be fair, the color red has also a natural origin, but usually represents danger, anger and is a warning signal. So it is good, that there isn’t red (except for the “academic hood” xD, I mean head covering, in the pirate version.
The point is, that the woman’s clothes are pretty dark as well as her overall appearance. Not meaning it in a “she is a dark person” kind of way, but simply the appearance seems this way. Especially when you see, that the clothes are where the brown parts are, the parts altered by humas. Her face also is more pointed towards the direction of the “snail” road. The best part of the picture is behind her, where the back of her head would be. There is the sun or a golden shimmer. As well as bright waters and green.
She smiles, maybe because she has to smile, maybe because she dreams of this picture in the back of her head. But it is no happy smile. It is more a hopeless smile, pretending to be happy or to cheer herself up, while inside she feels more like the clothes she is wearing. Her hands are crossed over, almost as if she tries to protect herself. It shows that she is insecure, doesn’t really feel comfortable, although it might just be what I think, as she says.
When I look at her eyes, I see a mixture of dispair, anger and emptiness, although there also is a bit of joy in them. It is as if they look right through me or the painter. Some may say, that the eyes follow you, but I would say, that you follow her eyes. She doesn’t look somewhere specific, maybe she looks towards you, but actually she might be somewhere else. Maybe at that place behind her back. But her feet are where the dirt lies, the dust travels and the darkness rises.
Now you might say: But how can you be sure, that you description of this painting is correct. And also isn’t this just you, wrapping your personal views around a piece of art, which might have no specific meaning or purpose at all?
Of course, I can’t proof that I am right and I also wouldn’t gain anything from it. Nor would I actually want that, although it would of course feel good to know, that someone might have had similar thoughts. By the way, I just randomly started to write about it in one go, as usual, so when I started to write, I actually just wanted to write a few lines and listen to one or two music pieces. But so goes life and intuition or curiositiy. You get a more or less random thought and then you write about dots, about drawing a line across the Mona Lisa, ending up describing the whole picture.
And when you then also see, that the pirate head is there as well, maybe we are all real pirates after all. If you understand, that we are obviously not talking about barbaric sea raiders which were hired by the queen or other people to steal for them. No, no, we are talking about freedom of thought and a general feeling of freedom over all.
Why is it, that most people just pay attention to the smile or maybe the face of the woman? I mean, of course, it is an interesting face, but nothing too unusual. I wouldn’t even say pretty. But that has nothing to do with it. I mean, Jack Sparrow does the same job and also is pretty or not pretty. I am not taling about beauty or any kind of ideal face or whatever. What I mean is, that it seems fake. The smile isn’t even a real smile and the eyes speak another language as well. Although it could seem, that they are smiling. It looks more as if they are screaming. But yes, this is just my interpretation, related to my overall view on nature, human actions and overall life according to history and knowledge. Therefor the Mona Lisa is a timeless painting, while it is frustrating as well. I have seen other versions, many other versions with different backgrounds, different faces etc.
What really is important about it? Obviously the perspective(s) of the viewer, you and me and others. They can see completely different things within it or just pay attention towards what others said is important.
For me it is usually more interesting to try to understand the intention by the creator. Be it in general for life or just a movie, a painting or book. Usually you are feeling, thinking or expressive something specific, when you create something. At least when you are really doing it out of some kind of freedom and not just basic labour or competitive pressured (re-)actions.
And a man like Da Vinci surely had very high intentions, understanding of things in general and talents or at least interest. Just the way he wrote the lines beneath the drawing of a human body and that they were mirrored, are enough to make you wonder. The simplicity of observation and complexity of thought, can really confuse the meaning. And it is also always open for a different view, like everything should be, but sadly often isn’t. I for my part would say, that the mirrored writing, just the fact that it was mirrored, tried to show, that meaning and knowledge are usually gained after looking through a mirror. It is that simple and yet so complicated for many because they focus more on the letters, try to find meaning within them. But just the mirror was the actual mesage.
When you understand, that you can express yourself in front of yourself, question yourself, describe yourself and also “recreate” yourself, you know, that you are enough. No matter how tall, how small, how weird or pretty you might seem, according to others. If you can watch yourself, you are already bigger than most people, even if you might be a little child. Actually children usually have still a better understanding of these simple concepts without even thinking much about them. They just “know” them somehow and also don’t need to understand it from a much deeper level.
When you describe a bird, the inside, the outside, the values, the history, the evolution and whatsoever, you forget the bird.
And you could say: “But otherwise I don’t know how the bird works, I can’t help it when it is hurt and also how it came to be.”
But then I ask you, do the people who did all of this know more about it after all? From my point of view, they still stand in front of their thousand mirrors and try to find their reflection. But somehow they just the a two dimensional image of themselves. And don’t really like what they see.
How do you help the bird with the knowledge about its current state or just the state of a few birds? Wouldn’t it be necessary for all birds to be exactly the same, that the knowledge about they physical appearance would at least make sense when you try to help? And isn’t it actual against nature and evolution, to try to see everything in a similar and equal way, when even twins aren’t fully the same?
How can someone else know what might be wrong with you or the bird, when they don’t even know, that the bird might not even be real?
It is like trying to help an imaginary friend to get well and while this might be possible, since you imagined it and therefor know what the friend could need (obviously), this don’t work in reality.
So why is it, that it is a thing? Why is it, that it is still a thing? And why doesn’t it seem to bother most people? At least not in a way you would assume it or want it.
The doctor says: “I have studied these creatures for decades now, so I know exactly how they behave.”
But then he has to sadly realize, that all he observed was a picture he created.
What is the number one killer of arguments, but doesn’t kill them because no one understands the meaning?
It is: Where have you been, when it was created.
Now you could obviously say, well, I have seen this bird popping out of an egg or seen this child get born and all that. And then we at least would have some kind of understanding. But what I am talking about is, where have you been, when it all started?
Obviously the scientists must have all been there, otherwise they would have to be honest and say, that their knowledge is also just based on assumptions, observations and theories.
I am simply observing, analysing and thinking about things. And for me it is possible that there could be a point, when the forces of the universe stop. So for example, the movement of galaxies, solar systems and all. What would they say then?
Probably: There must be a rational explanation.
But then again, did they invent it? – I think not.
So back to the beginning: For me it isn’t important why and how, for me it just matters that we are here and that we can do things. And this allows to question it and create stories and I like stories. But as soon as you force people to believe in these stories, especially without the ability to question them, then it is out of hands real quick. Not to say a cult or simply madness.
I mean, what would you say, if suddenly a man with six arms stands in front of you, while having two heads and five eyes each?
Okay, maybe too much, you would probably scream and either run away or stop in shick.
But I mean, why? It could also just be a friendly creature.
In a game called Starbound they also used this psychological factor or wrong assumption between visual and actual danger. Because on some planets there were big and aggressive or dangerous looking creatures, but they actually were friendly and only attacked, when you first attacked them. While then little or friendly seeming creatures tried to kill you the second they noticed you. Sometimes even dealing a lot of unexpected damage.
And we usually forget, that we are also just creatures, which could be seen very different just when you look at our own kind.
But Starbound is actually not a very good example, when it comes to freedom and different personalities within species. Although the players themselves and some NPCs might be different from the norm after all.
If you ignore, that it would be complicated to program a wide variation of personalities for just one out of hundreds of species, this could also represent the usual view of humans towards other creatures or even their own kind. That they only see “dog” and think, dog, is dog. And then they see “girl” and think girl is girl. And nothing more. Okay, or it would also have been pretty nerve wrecking, time consuming and psychologically damaging, besides the extra time for coding, to implement a wide variation for individuals.
Either way, I really like this game and it was also talking about the big Tentacle monster, like so many other stories and games. Why is that? Well, obviously because the Kraken (or similar lifeforms) has a lot of arms, can get very big and think, as well as recode itself. There are some who can change their skin color to hide this way. Besides other cool and scary things.
So it has so many arms to be able to catch prey or an enemy and also in some cases use ink to blind or confuse. Why is it the Kraken and why has it so many arms, unlike most other life forms, which usually have only one or two separate main parts to move. I mean, of course there are little worms and other things with a lot of little feet and such. But the still just move one body, one main thing. And the kraken also has one body, but still the many arms can act separate from each other and seemed to some sailers even like snakes. The kraken is still one if not the scariest creature, at least when out in the sea. Because it can not only hit and eat you, but also simply drown you and embrace your ship until it burts.
Scary stuff, scary indeed.
But luckily nature stands above all things, so don’t lose hope and also don’t let others tell you what is natural and what is not. Laws of nature are also just another assumption based on experiences, experiments and observations of some people and their expectations.
But even a cat can speak a few human words and also a human can speak with a bird. Although they might not understand everything the other says.
And even a lion could save an ape baby, as well as one human might rescue a deer from a forest fire, while another one could shoot it or the both of them.
Nature is all things, knowledge is just what you made of it.
Therefor I might just be as smart as the bird I try to understand or as ignorant as the mountains, which just keep on standing without a move, without a word, not even a smile. If even, then they only fall apart or do they?