I’d quote sections of what you’ve written to refer to them more specifically as you have easily been able to do with mine, but it would make my post 10 times longer and I’d spend all day scrolling. I’m all for happiness and exploration, but I object to the persistent use of devices beyond appropriation. It just reminds me of the self-satisfied conceit of the petty who’re so blinded with the delight of having finally adopted a different approach to something ahead of any established trend that they feel the need to show off their approach repeatedly, even when it is far from complementary to the whole point of what they’re communicating, until everyone is sick of it. It permeates this thread obnoxiously and it’s ironic that you seem to skate around the accusation that I’m bound by my format. The irony is extended further by the amount of empty ‘air’ blowing around within these vast posts of yours inadvertently complementing the vacuous nature of the thoughts they contain.
I use rhetorical devices myself when writing if appropriate. Concise stabs suit my cutting points. The increased density of my word layouts mirror the impenetrable solidarity of my understanding. Not straying from certain customs all the time can show good taste. It is in bad taste and disrespectful of ancestry to persistently attempt to escape custom to overexaggerate your individuality, as though you think you are great and separate from the manifold historical factors that have contributed to your current situation, when in fact you are just blind to them. Your high-horse is so high, you daren’t jump off it.
Yes. Your entire list is a list of pursuits as though they were leisures that everyone can take for granted and indulge in if they see themselves as cultured enough. You’re so bourgeois you don’t even seem to be aware of different lifestyles to your own. None of the list is noble, except the one you had previously left out, ‘testing one’s courage’, which you immediately go on to sully with narcissistic displays of humility by exaggerating and prostrating yourself in servile apology. ‘Ignoble’ doesn’t go far enough here. Then you go on to illustrate further ignorance with your accusation of my aimless laziness in refusing to idiotically moralise. My objection is towards your objectional attitude that anyone who doesn’t organise narrow minded criteria to ‘sensibly’ structure their life’s practices is lower than you.
It seems being a vagabond here would actually benefit you so I definitely advocate unprincipled behaviour for one such as yourself. It would at least widen your experiences of life and give you an improved idea of totality. Maybe it would even thrust you into the life-giving rush of a bit of chaos. Your idea of moralising is in fact just a form of fascism. You prescribe rules to restrict everyone else to the knowable, sensible, restrained box of pacified dispassion because this is the only situation in which you feel protected and safe enough to hide in. You essentially outlaw the realms of explosive flourishes and chance because they’re not focused enough for you to cope with and you would feel scared in a world where they proliferated. What a world that would be, in the face of this one, where you could feel alive and well matched once again because everyone was as unrestrained as everyone else and capable to engage passionately with one another to their heart’s content.
We live in a weak rotting society where every weakness is doted upon and raised up to the accepted norm, such that we dissolve our minds with pity and prune all the new exciting growth clean off our bare wilting stalks, to at least be all weak together. To the strong this is hell, and your signature shows your blindness of what it is to be strong, NOBLE and capable. To reduce oneself in the face of such potential so that the incapable don’t feel outdone is frustrating beyond words. It’s a sick joke that nobility is now so commonly mistaken for equality.
Equally backwards is your notion that lack of goodness breeds ignorance. It is precisely your goodness that blinds you to the merits of what you have branded bad and evil and that makes you ignorant. You actually think that wars come from being unfairly divisive and unsharing. Further irony can be noted here with the observation of your unknowing divisive ways, separating you from those you are ignorant about and separating those who follow your principles from those who see the merits of freeing themselves from them.
You only seem to understand sharing as a meticulous moral imperitive. Real sharing is an uncontrollable release of need to bestow upon equals because of what they have given to you by simply being a life-giving match. This is love and I agree you can’t measure it. I would argue that you are the zombie here because you don’t recognise this kind of love, only a meticulous moral imperitive to share because it’s ‘right’. The kind of love that I here mention is the only source of creative immortality that has always been timeless. You aren’t creating here, you are restricting life to focus on one area of it as morally principled and thus deny the totality of love by outlawing part of it as morally ‘wrong’.
Phewph. I think that’s me done, I do love passion. Now just imagine if I typed all that out without punctuation and with one or two words per line, perhaps even justified to the middle or right of the page to further explore the freedom of the internet post haha.