A playful freethinking process

Opening sequence.

The way it works is that I want to lie to myself that I don't need this 'worldly' stuffs, worldly validation and guilty pleasures. Through knowledge I've been made to want to believe that the world will not matter in the end. That the way to ultimate salvation is the ultimate relinquish of one's worldly wants. Just like Buddha, Just like Jesus on a cross and just like every other unknown saints before and after.

The way I want to make it is that I am wrong. If I am wrong it would be much much easier living, pitching in my 9 to 5 and having what little time I have to my guilty pleasures. I don't have to think anymore because everything's already there. Listen to my boss, listen to my girl, listen to my parents, listen to my friend to my pope to my television internet. My opinion is their opinion and their opinion is mine. Complete hive-mindlike thinking. And I play Terran in Starcraft II. And no you can't get to Diamond with just a heartbeat.

Truth to be told I care about all the worldly things just as much as the guy next to me. It's just that I don't care enough to push my finger typing my resume to get a job to get the worldly stuffs. Why is that I don't know. Probably I'm a lazy bum but I know that I'm not that. At least I'm not a lazy bum while I'm doing an artwork or playing video games. But that's what they call a lazy bum in the 'real' world. If so then yes I'm a lazy bum. But that's beside the point. The point is my friend tells me that I don't know myself well enough to truly know what I want. What I now know is that my friend is telling me that. What I make of it is an entirely different thing.

The way it also works is that I'm never just myself alone. There's a lot of me. At one time the 'me' that likes to think will want to think things over and at another time the 'me' that wants to do would only want to do things. The way it got fucked up is that I'm never truly in control of what I want.

But if I want to entertain the suggestion of 'knowing oneself' I might as well ask myself what 'knowing' and 'oneself' means. Knowing is a godly attribute, for it is defined that god is all-knowing. You can't know halfly and call it knowing. But again if I want to entertain the notion of 'human knowing' I'll have to further scrape the perfection of knowing and water it down a lot to the human level, that we can never be god, and thus severely limited in knowledge and thus, I can call myself already knowing enough as a human. Then it is a matter of measuring my knowledge against other humans. Then again, what is knowing in human terms? This gets severely complicated.

Human knowing is severely subjective, we can't compare an artist's knowledge and a scientist's knowledge directly because it is even absurd to think so, they work on different tools. And when society over-generalize people's intellect based on math test scores, it demeans humanity as they speak. When we keep wanting people to work in a certain way, a certain system we might've just killed off thousands of talents unknowingly, because these people might have been working in different systems, that the normal society rejects or ignore. Even as I use the word scientists and artists as a profession, this has already been generalized, because even amongst artists they use different tools to approach a certain subject. What I see then is that, we should just drop the label and see us just what our original label is, a human.

But what is a human? Even as I drop the labels I am still faced with a puzzling dilemma which is the definition of human itself. Because of the lack of clarity on my part, for now, I like to view humans as a perception tool. I am what I am able to perceive. The ability to name/define things, to conceptualize, to assume, to imagine, to connect to the unknown. Humans exist as an idea, for we realize ideas. We are Santa and the fairy godmother and Genie in a bottle ourselves. Only we don't grant wishes with a single wave of a finger, that'd be godly. We are Santa without all his magic reindeers, but we can invent stuffs. It might be the reason why we are interested in knowledge and art and build stuffs.

So what then, is knowing linked towards perception? I can only know what I can perceive. And going by that can you call a person who cannot perceive the same as 'not knowing'? I guess it fits.

Then finally I can move to the next question in the 'knowing oneself' semi-conundrum I created. What is 'oneself'? Specifically, what is 'me'? What is I?

For one, I am human. But what kind of human am I? Again, because I lack in clarity, I view myself in terms of my individuality. Individuality is what separates me as a human and other humans and things and animals. Individuality is another way of saying "I am different than you." This way, I have established what is me, as an individual.

But the concept of individuality itself does not stop there. If I take the definition of 'knowing' as 'perceiving' like earlier, I can say that knowing myself is only limited towards perception. And thus, individuality itself gets broader with the ability of perception.

Suppose I say, that I am part of an organization that exists carrying the slogan "Justice through killing Muslims" would I have separated myself from another organization that carries a different 'justice'? If so, then my organization itself has become an individual of its own. If I am a part of a band then that band is an individual. If I am a part of a household then the family exists as an individual. This, I realize, is the forming of new individualities. And also here, the line of 'me' starts to blur.

I realized that I'm no longer limited to just this bag of meat, for I extend even into the vastness of this chaotic misfortune that troubles the supposedly rational mind. This place where my rationality no longer thrives, but compromised thoroughly. I exist, as a tool. This bag of meat, my memories, my emotions, my mind, my beliefs exists, as a mere tool, for the benefit of something else. Here, free will no longer exists, or rather, free will only exist by consent of the higher power.

God.

I guess in the grand scale I really do exist for God.

Then if God exist, then I might not be able to perceive him yet. And thus, I would say that no one knew God, unless he himself, as a human, can be God himself.

I could be wrong.

I could be wrong. Haha.

But as far as the semi-conundrum goes, I have, triumphantly, if ever playfully, answered my own question. As far as my own perception of reality goes, and to what extent I can perceive as being 'me', I can finally work toward what I want. As long as my own perception remains unmoving, I would do what I believe as important, until proven wrong, I would not be in sin. Because, how can there be sin in ignorance?