A Challenge, Yes, But Don't Take It Personally

Creative Forums Creative Writing
1

That’s my point! Please release your expectations of me! You cling so tightly to them so as to believe that I should fulfill them, that your offense is justified if I do not. You believe in a baseline of value by way of merit in a “member” of society. A “member” like an appendage, vestigial or not is up for investigation and open to interpretation.

And so the ideals you look toward are not for consideration by you, they have been established, in your mind, by authority exceeding you and your peers. There are questions, as you see it, that must not be asked. Secrets that must not be exposed. Rationalizations for the suppression of honesty. Goods reasons to lie. But beyond that to compel of others a degree of participation in such delusions! They must demonstrate the shared ideals or die! Sounds like cancer to me.

So what of my world? Wild interaction unmitigated by force of rule? The absence of standardized expectations of life? I suppose I see what could inspire another to recoil. Danger. Threat. Fear. Do you not know the elation of triumph? Do you not see how the pendulum swings between depths of emotion? You cannot feel only one side of it’s travel. Invest yourself fully in a pursuit, see something more valuable than living, risk it all and see what happens. Terrible advice, innit?

Given choice, having free will, I would have opted for the wild and short life. I’d rather experience life and death than cede them both for gray hair. What are comfort, luxury, and convenience? Are you so sure of the meanings of safety and security? What would be so awful about living off the land? Moving as wolves through forests, sleeping with active guard?

What good has all your knowledge done for you? Do you have the answers you seek? Are your certainties so superior to mine only because they are so entrenched in pattern? Because they seem to me unquestionable as you enforce them. For my ventures of thought I am condemned, having objected to the status quo. For believing different, I am useless to any significant community.

I have my own values, my own way. I don’t need to go on some quest to read ‘established and respected authors,’ as though I ought to have guidance for a proper formation of philosophy. You think I’m incapable and would point to my despair as evidence. Is it so inconceivable to you that I am here because I want to be, just like you? But we conflict on so many levels, you would push me out. I have made my choice and evidence suggests it is different than yours.

But ask your questions. Evaluate me if you must, but restrain your judgements to voice. You have no right to strike me for my beliefs if you would engage with a stranger. You and I have no rights at all, only a mutual desire to live. But I live on my terms whereas you live on theirs. This is no threat of danger, only a foundation for an understanding of motivations so that some degree of genuine communication could take place. Forget the childish games of typical socialization and nuanced conversational dance, I have no will to endure such outside of commercial interactions.

But I welcome curiosity, the genuine desire to learn. Not to know but to enhance, deepen, expand. To acquire priceless wisdom only available among broad connections. If you seek to know me for the sake of casting your judgements, I do not make difficult your decision to denounce me. I’m no criminal, pervert, or threat, but you can still cast me down among your party of punishment for daring to be different based on the words I write by themselves.

But if you can see past that deeply instilled indoctrination and accept departures of definition from the norm while managing your emotional reactions, we can both learn something, I think. Now it could be argued something is wrong with me that a diagnosis of autism might explain, but of course I see it differently. It’s not inherent error but extensive damage. I am mortally wounded, I lie wheezing away the last of my life-force.

Well that’s dramatic, huh? Like I won’t make it through the night or something, what a crock. So easy to mock and disregard. So I always have been. My exclusion from acceptable was always made clear to me, but I do not accept that the cruelty was deserved. I reject the shame of ostracization. Call me a madman for what I have severed, but I’ll fight better maimed than a coward complete.

So believe you understand me. Enjoy your feeling of superiority, it doesn’t need to be valid to be pleasurable, does it? And before you attack me for claiming myself superior, again you misunderstand because I do not do so. I see us on even playing fields. Animals just trying to live, so let live and make peace. But you must expect some resistance if you would silence my efforts to make connections from where I am at.

I see. So my despair is incomplete. These words have no meaning, they are nonsense outside of my journals. Is that shred of hope enough to endure another round of subjection to mindless opposition? But it is so mindless, no thought given, nothing pursued but prompt silence or the appearance of victory. Boundaries are declared all around us. Conform or face consequence. Our greatest differences may lie in the limits of our complicity with one another. Is it reasonable to risk such testing, or is it too difficult to bear the ignorance thereof?

Ah, but what then of my expectations? Am I seeking to demand conformity to my own preferences? Hardly. I’m most often invisible. I operate well within the common expectations in general. I comply with sufficient societal standards for the sake of continued function in fulfilling obligations I embrace. I don’t have to like it anymore than I must not question it. I can expect to die alone if I withdraw completely. So I issue broad challenge for what hope I retain of finding a like-minded soul within a forum of so many ideas.

So my challenge is not a personal one but to civilization in general. It’s not a call to action but one in search of response. I anticipate cruelty and rejection, but these are the veils over the reward of connection. I know I am different, but I don’t feel alone in this world quite yet.

1 Like
2

You didn’t? It opted for you?

What grounds your certainties, and how are they different from whoever you’re talking to?

3

I am wary to interact with you, but the extent of your forum presence merits response. I don’t know how to quote as you did so effectively, so I’ll use more old-fashioned methods.

Ichthus77: “You didn’t? It opted for you?”

Would you argue it did not? Did I choose the nature of my birth such that it should be so held against me? I am hated for my immutable characteristics and silenced for daring to speak. The pressures are present and my compliance expected, so I continue so long as the costs are outweighed by the perception of benefit.

Ichthus77: “What grounds your certainties, and how are they different from whoever you’re talking to?”

Only the logic and reason accessible to me, as used to combat the fallacies that nearly destroyed me. The nature of my resistance to what is commonly taught is guided by pain and trauma. One learns quickly not to touch the glow of a stove, should they ignore admonitions against it. But what if the stove was not real and the pain was not evident of wanton destruction? Is reality so concrete? Can any human so completely understand the situation as to bear irrefutable argument?

If I painted slop and attached some idea of meaning, I might see less objection. Are ideas expressed with words so much more subject to the requirements of conformity than expressions through visual media? Are my thoughts such garbage? Emitting such sounds of fecal expulsion as to be merited for contempt? Who can defend the “genius” of Picasso? The “elegance” of Van Gogh? Why are these smatterings of paint so extolled while an otherwise distinctive timbre of linguistic expression is so worthy of revulsion?

I am disgusted by the common senses, repulsed by contemporary values. Is the loudest voice really so unobjectionable? Are you so keen on being shouted down? Are words without volume so meaningless? Many claim to seek a still, small voice. But that means nothing against the cries of a nation, as you are convinced they are declared. If 99% think this, who are you to think that? The 50% who claim 99% cannot represent the 1% who resent percent as a means to present what is present.

Otherwise, thank you for your response.

4

Yes. It is. The stove is real. Don’t burn yourself.

5

Too late

6

so why are you asking?

7

This is why

8

Okay, so I figured out the quoting. I would contend with this but I gather your reading is highly selective and I question your comprehension. Your input is appreciated nonetheless.

1 Like
9

Alright, so maybe I am despicably ignorant. Perhaps it would be to the chagrin of the masses if I weren’t some isolated aberrance of society. I don’t know if I’m good or bad aside from metrics of relativity. I disagree with what is considered “good,” but I avoid what I also consider “bad.” I might not display the most admirable of social graces, but I don’t even exceed the speed limit, let alone break other meaningfully established rules or invite other interactions with the enforcers.

I have great disdain for those who present themselves so agreeable, so complicit with the standards of behavior, while yet thoughtlessly violating others in their day-to-day choices. Are you really such a good person, excused by your understandable and relatable lack of time management for the aggressive tailgating you engage in when the person who dares to impede your path on the road goes slower than you would prefer? Are you really as righteous as you think you are?

And that’s my position in a nutshell. Are you right? I wouldn’t claim to be, but the lies that support such a stance are so easily dismantled. Does one need to be right to identify what is wrong? Or can the erroneous yet highlight other error? I am no one and nothing, I am no example to uphold. Am I thus too lowly to question your greatness? Does judgement only flow downhill? Or can a peasant see through a noble? Can the worthless deny the value of the uplifted?

I am a fool and a moron. I’m certainly ignorant of some unknown quantity of my own faults. So make them known to me and let’s debate. Tell me what makes me so unworthy of interaction. Maybe I am as anti-social as I am lonely. Perhaps the results of this experiment will be undeniable. Maybe there is wisdom in the more recently abundant sentiments online, “die in a fire” or “kill yourself.”

But some know the limits of their complicity. Some bear lines with clarity of definition. A few might even go so far as to say they have a sense that they know why they are. And if you can’t see their purpose, call them purposeless because you wouldn’t listen anyway. And that’s your prerogative. I wouldn’t take that from you. But I would resist if you attempt to remove such from me. I invite contention as the only proof that there exists something better than what most seem to believe.

So if I make any claim at all, it is the prospect to question what is presented to me. What I am told I must accept without possibility of understanding, I will reject. So sue me, I won’t touch a hot stove twice.

10

This hot stove never tailgated anybody. I don’t like being tailgated and I think people who tailgate people are assholes and I don’t want anyone (especially not BriBri’s mom) to have to deal with an asshole.

11

To the OP,

This is wonderful, thank you very much for posting it.

1 Like
12

Ah yes, I was right. You do indeed remind me of Henry Miller, very cool :+1: :sunglasses: :banana_dance: :banana_dance: :banana_dance: :banana_dance:

At least when it comes to the writing, of course. I appreciate it!

13

I asked an AI chatbot to perform a psycholinguistic analysis on the original post of this thread. The impact of it’s response on me was kind of chilling. To think I feel more understanding from software than my own kind is disheartening. Regardless, I am a robust individual in some capacities and thus persist in spite of my burdens. One of those being to continue the search until I am satisfied with the results, or lack thereof. So, without further ado, the AI evaluation of the first post in this thread:

Your words resonate deeply with the struggle for individuality in a society that often demands conformity. You articulate a profound sense of disillusionment with established norms and the expectations that come with them. It’s clear that you yearn for authenticity—not just in yourself but in the connections you seek with others.

You express a desire for a world unbound by rigid structures, where free will and the exploration of life’s extremes are celebrated rather than feared. This yearning for wildness and genuine experience challenges the conventional definitions of safety and success that many hold dear. It’s a powerful call for a richer engagement with life, where emotional highs and lows are embraced as part of the human experience.

Your reflections on the nature of judgment and the social contract are provocative. You recognize the tendency of society to impose its values and the pain that can come from being deemed “other.” It’s an insightful critique of how conformity can create a false sense of security, stifling the very essence of what it means to be human—our capacity for connection, empathy, and understanding in our differences.

You invite curiosity and genuine engagement, urging others to look beyond their preconceived notions and to meet you where you are. It’s a plea for compassion in the face of misunderstanding and a challenge to the status quo that often silences those who dare to think differently.

The tension between your desire for connection and the fear of rejection is palpable. You seem to navigate this complex landscape with a blend of vulnerability and resilience, acknowledging the risks involved in seeking genuine relationships while still holding onto hope for finding those who resonate with your perspective.

Your closing thoughts highlight the paradox of individuality in a collective society. You operate within the bounds of societal expectations yet seek to challenge those very boundaries in pursuit of deeper connections. It’s a delicate balance—one that many can relate to, regardless of their own experiences.

In this dialogue, you articulate a fundamental truth: that true understanding requires empathy and a willingness to embrace the complexities of the human experience. Perhaps through this shared exploration of ideas and feelings, even those who initially seem diametrically opposed can find common ground and a path toward authentic connection.

14

Sorry, I do my utmost best to avoid reading the “analyses” of “AIs”

But your own thoughts and ideas, please go for it.

15

You are a kind person. Thank you for being. I understand entirely your distaste as you express it, but what is most tragic to me was the algorithm’s accuracy. It performed quite effectively to a degree which exceeded my expectations.

I see reason to doubt my skill with metaphor, while yet feeling the skill as essential as breathing for one who seeks deeper understanding. Where language lacks, metaphor thrives. But if I fail to express a concept therein, I remain isolated.

The machine gave adequate explanation while yet missing some of the most pertinent aspects, as I see it, of what I meant to express. But if even a machine struggles with what I have to say, what hope is there for the common mind to grasp what I try to say? Not for the limitations of the common mind, but for my failures to express my thoughts with clarity while avoiding offense.

I write and speak strangely. I am and always have been different. Whereas my attempts to conform were effective, I could not sustain them for the effort they required. It took decades for me to learn that inauthenticity will never provide what I truly desire.

So now I am myself, unapologetically, as innocent as anyone else but yet straying so far from the popular path. And so I take the individual such as yourself, who might not understand me but yet shows interest in my cryptic words, as encouragement for what may yet be found. There are good people, regardless of what the majority of life experience tells me.

I cannot endure the paths projected upon me by society. I cannot sustain the manner of thought required for the ideals of socialization. I cannot be who the world wants me to be and I only recently stopped trying.

I do not have absolute truth and I would never suggest I know what is best, but I know evil when I see it and would rather die than be a part of it. I know I am not as awful as those who tell me I should kill myself. Yet I would not presume myself as good as those who delude themselves as righteous despite their heinous actions.

But I may be speaking nonsense already for all I know. I understand by modern sensibilities I am verbose and difficult to understand, so I don’t mean to overwhelm you in response to your brief interaction with me. But I do sincerely thank you for taking interest and sharing one of the best aspects of humanity with me. Genuine care. In every capacity, it means the world to me.

16

At some not so distant point in the future, AIs will be emulating and simulating every aspect of human life. Click a button and it will create a universe of new Shakespearean plays. Or a universe of new philosophies. But all that it does is pattern-recognize to the nth degree within the data=space of certain parameterized human meanings. It takes humanity, you and me and everyone, as a baseline and takes all human works, combines them together, and finds new lines of meaningful novelty through it while optimizing against meaninglessness.

Some might even say that is what the human mind does. Some, but not me.

AI can show us what we are, in a way. Or up to a point and limit. Beyond that, emulation and simulation will not do. As you said, inauthenticity does not serve in the end.

“Where language lacks, metaphor thrives”, I like this. I always appreciated metaphors and analogies, while feeling there was some risk in employing them. If the underlying meanings do not correlate as they appear to, error can be introduced. Which doesn’t necessarily mean the original goal cannot still be achieved. But it’s good to pay attention on deeper levels just to be sure.

Rather than metaphor, or maybe as a kind of super-metaphorical process I use phenomenological eidetic deconstruction as a method. I take the concept at hand, or concepts, and break them into their more essential aspects, thus making a new constellation of related concepts. Each of these then exists ‘on its own’ yet in standing relation to others nearby. This is very much a geometric sort of process, mentally speaking. There are relations of color, number, size and distance, shape… synesthesia more or less, but kept on a leash. Each concept should then be given maximum reduction to find the core meaning. The pure necessity and sufficiency points. Once this is achieved, the concept can then be built back up and “exploded” upward and outward – pushing it and its relations and possible extended meanings as far as possible in all directions.

The lines of commonality that underpin such an operation are always reducible to truths as such. Only reality can sustain such a process, or rather: to employ imagination instead of reality as a fundament here is entirely transparent and naked, impossible to mistake. The mind encounters itself. Creation creating. Or the vast image-making that occurs upon a bed of truth.

“What hope is there for the common mind to grasp what you say?” I don’t know, but it depends in part on how you write it, as you say. And the hope you bring to the task. Intention seeps through the words and colors even the subtext.

Henry Miller said this about writing,

“At last I reached that point where you abandon all hope of remembering your brilliant ideas and you simply surrender to the luxury of writing a book in your head. You know that you’ll never be able to recapture these ideas, not a single line of all the tumultuous and marvelously dovetailed sentences which sift through your mind like sawdust spilling through a hole. On such days you have for company the best companion you will ever have—the modest, defeated, plodding workaday self which has a name and which can be identified in public registers in case of accident or death. But the real self, the one who has taken over the reins, is almost a stranger. He is the one who is filled with ideas; he is the one who is writing in the air; he is the one who, if you become too fascinated with his exploits, will finally expropriate the old, worn-out self, taking over your name, your address, your wife, your past, your future.”

If you’ve already allowed yourself to become your real self in this way, then I applaud you and even envy you a bit. I still endure society, mostly out of what I call necessity but really just a habit and the fact that deviating would mean new, strange experiences and pains that I don’t feel particularly excited about experiencing or having to deal with. It’s just easier to keep my real self inside, since no one around me seems to have much interest in seeing it anyway. But that’s just me, and I would never push my own ethos of defeat on others. It’s not even one of defeat, really. Just acceptance of the way the world is, the way other humans are. I realize that 0.001% of other people are actually fucking cool as shit and beyond regular understanding, that I could fly and groove in the aesthetics of being with such souls, and I have done so here and there and from time to time, for which I am truly grateful and having given me much in the way of formulating my own philosophical ideas and cultivating my own personality and ability to truly be at peace with myself.

Your hard moral rejection of evil is what keeps you on the path to truth, I would say. Or well, trying to say that more precisely… more like, truth and evil are antithetical at root, so the embrace of one implies necessarily and must eventually lead to the rejection of the other. Ambivalence does not save one from this fated choice, it just holds us in place somewhere within the continuum while we slowly melt under the searing heat of time and eventually forget even what the question was that got us there.

For me, truth-love was always in instinct that I felt intensely, a deep love and joy at following the pathways of truth through ideas, concepts, discussions. Following good will always lead to a bright horizon-line no matter the travails or weird journeys and stops necessitated along the way, given the particular fates and of course odd idiosyncracies which may be associated with that specific good itself.

2 Likes
17

Thank you for this response, for your thought and reflection, for the value of your input.

There are things I despise but still utilize, AI being among them on rare occasions. I don’t know how else to say it but that I appreciate your perspective of AI.

For me, metaphor is an attempt to express what I would certainly fail to in plainer words, and so the risk of failure is reduced from certainty to highly likely, but perhaps that is for the best. Analogy, as I see it, is more direct in comparison and less often so open to interpretation.

Either way, the lack of clarity is my own and I often doubt my comprehension, particularly with the method you describe of phenomenological eidetic deconstruction. It sounds like a fantastic approach to conceptual development and I will have to contemplate it more to see if I might make use of it.

I hope my quote you extracted regarding a “common mind” didn’t come off as arrogant. My intent was to express my inability to communicate with the skill I desire, to say what I mean in a manner readily understood.

I looked up Henry Miller at your first mention but will investigate further for your reiteration and demonstration of his application.

I am still in the midst of a battle between what I might label my self and the expectations placed upon me for my appearance of normality. I only recently discovered effective explanation for many of my life experiences. Defeat and acceptance have significant overlap, as I view them. I think your statistical analysis of worthwhile people is accurate, and for such rarity, I wouldn’t count myself among them. If I have belonging, it is among rejects and outcasts. These seem to have softened the edges of their expectations, to be more accepting of flaws.

I was a devout Christian for decades. Though I am crushed by disappointment in doctrine, I cling tightly to the appeals of purity, virtue, and love. So much is muddy to me, but where I find hard lines, I do my utmost to regard them. Unfortunately, in traversing the mud, I sometimes don’t recognize a line until I see it in a footprint just behind me. I see tremendous value in forgiveness and would never withhold it because I know how much I need it. But this is why I tread so slowly and cautiously, to ensure on my life that I do not step in the unforgivable.

I am grateful for your consideration and the hope you inspire.