There is no point to life.
Fundamentally your life isn’t progressing.
Life is a mix of opposing qualities: birth and death, growth and decay, joy and sorrow, desire and satisfaction.
If there was a point to life, which I don’t think there is, it’d be to embrace all these states of being, or to embrace nothing at all.
There’s no such thing as a one sided coin, but that hasn’t stopped many of us from trying to find one.
Does pleasure not imply pain, does drunkenness not imply sobriety?
Every direction you can travel in: north, west, up, there is an opposing direction: south, east, down.
Likewise, birth, growth, joy and so on, are directions, there a towards something we, think we want, or an away from something we don’t want, we hope.
The only way to do away with negativity, at least for yourself and those within capacity to affect, is to wholeheartedly embrace it, embrace annihilation.
Could it have possibly been any other way?
It doesn’t matter, this is the way things are.
But is it really a case of 999 steps back, and 1000 steps forward, or vice versa?
How can you tell, who knows?
Are things really traveling more northernly than southernly?
The famine makes the feast all the more necessary, vibrant and stimulating.
We appreciate the good times after the hard times, all the more, but likewise, we lament at the loss of the good times, if they were really very good, all the more, and round and round it goes.
There’s nothing original about what I’m saying, it’s been said a million times before, in nearly the same way.
There’s nothing even especially nuanced about it.
Even pointing out how little nuance it has, isn’t that nuanced.
How can one be nuanced in our modern world, where everyone is now a writer?
The more people there are, the more people writing there are, the less you matter, the less you matter as a writer.
The more everyone can say something, the more need there is to bite ones tongue.
But then when did human of all animal beings do anything because we needed to, in even the loosest sense of the word need?
People think you must be whole hearted about life…but you can be half hearted, you can give half your heart to things and to people, and keep the other half for yourself, or for no one and nothing, because it rarely turns out like you planned, for the good, or the better.
I think it’s good to have lots of reservations about anything you get into, to hold back, or at least it suits me.
Maybe fewer things in life are actually worth doing, or doing them to the max, than people think.
But there’s no one way to do life, aside from the bare essentials, which we must all partake in, there’s a million ways to do it, and this makes for a lot of ambiguity, ambivalence and arguing.
It also makes things more interesting.
What do you think, should life be lived head on?
Give it your all, or nothing at all, or can it be half lived, should it be, with one foot in this world, and the other in nothing or the ‘next’, if there is such a thing?
These days everyone seems to think there’s many ways to live life, but no one seems to think suicide, or a sort of suicide of the heart, is one of them, why not?
But if one only gives half their heart, or energy to things, what does on do with the remainder?