You're in the middle of the ride (a logic exercise)

An essay I wrote in my early 20's, as a stream of consciousness piece, about perception and analyzing valid thoughts. Directed at an indirect 2nd party, I continually return to relating, on a personal level, things I pondered in early adulthood.

• Essay

								
So a good reflection on you is what you can see in other people's reactions to you. It could be that a negative connotation will be attached to these findings but it can serve as quite an accurate reading on where you stand and where it seems you are coming from; based on what you put out there as discernible facts and meaning. What you feel about this reflection is separate from how it will make you think about yourself. Your wonderings may inevitably include 'am I liked,' or 'do I count,' and these are valid thoughts existing to help affirm your existence. But your emotions can be tricky because mostly they'll take you down a path of behavioral conditioning and reinforcement. If you get positive feedback from a certain action, you'll eventually try it again because the reaction it produced made you feel good. And the opposite is true, as one forms personality and tries ruthlessly to avoid the speed bumps of embarrassment and disdain. 
Your thoughts count, because they can build you up beyond the worrying about getting hurt or feeling accepted. Your thoughts and thinking can defeat your, not as powerful emotional side and be a powerful tool in marking your own path and making it really count for yourself. Your emotions can be employed to help you better attain your real life goals once you reach a point that your thinking transcends your feelings. The two don't have to be separate but I think they've always been for me. So is this a bad thing? Well does it matter? And what is a bad thing anyway? What is bad? That, which is not sought after as passionately or as frequently as other things? A judgment is made that badness is going against the life process and the progression of change for the better, for the good. A negative is the opposite of a positive thing and is viewed or reflected in appropriately similar ways to my description above of how people's reactions can work - when viewed by the receiver as negative. In avoiding the negative it becomes hard to not find validation in the positive. One almost exists to hold the other up in its bearings. 
Truly can there be a bad without a good? It seems or may seem so but I think a middle ground exists and persists. But what exists in this "in between?" The answer is everything and nothing. Because all things are manifested in thought. And the thinking that a middle area is the safest is just my opinion, but it feels like the right one. I think that this will be clearer when I bring up the concept of distortion. Bad thoughts, good thoughts, bad actions, good actions can and do all come from the same root = the mind of a creative force or being. Thought in action is what makes dreams a reality or for that same line of logic, a nightmare. Back a moment on the thought that everything and nothing exist on the same plane, this implies that they're basically the same. I think, intrinsically, they actually are its just distortion, poor reflection (visibility) and judgment which puts the clouds in the sky & makes things appear when they do not. Mind power & thought power creating what is not ready to be perceived or understood is the negative impact or scary factor on this train. This creative mind on a grand scale (whether it be a collective, singular, temporal, ethereal, etc.) has made for us, what appears to be, a world full of potential yet with limiting constraints. One can live only so long, so they can only accomplish that which their time will allow. 
And it's 'time'; the idea of it --that I'm wrestling with. How does time work except that most people train their activities around the appearance and location of the sun? So what if we could no longer see the sun, or if it were always out? Would time continue, stand still, or just not really exist? It's not easy to guess, but time-keeping prevents people from feeling lost. I don't want to feel lost, but I think it's only a way of thinking, a state of mind, that makes the condition of feeling lost even a reality at all. Lost implies not belonging to anything, being without a home or place to return to. Not having a base, headquarters, home office, or permanent sounding board. You don't need these things when you're free of you're own mind's constraints. A free thinker is never lost or without reason to be consoled because they live in their own world without fear or lack of hope for creating or accomplishing. 
Once again now, I've brought up fear because it is the most grand illusion. Well at least it might be because it is a multifaceted complex inhibitor to progress and growth; being more than before. More isn't always better than less but it's again almost the same thing when one thinks further on it. Alot is having to do with, probably too much. Not enough is being without sufficiency and underprepared or, under that which is required. So in both instances there exists a prevalence, actually an abundance of surplus. Just the right amount is too much and not enough at the same time. A coexisting of opposites, I think, is actually sameness or oneness. You just have to focus out further and see it occurring worldwide and possibly universally. There being much, too much and there being not at all. All or nothing is what I'm getting at. Diverging or converging is the question. Just when it seems things are entropy bound, things seem to become ordered and structured again. Is there more existing or coming into existence as order, or is disorder acting upon our physical world? Or does it balance, out as I hesitate to intimate the concept of nature. Because myth/belief suggests nature is unpredictable and unbound with limitless fury to make or destroy. So, as accomplishments permeate as constructive- progress that can't be achieved without employing thought powers- the conscious effort to take established things apart is paired with the idea of criminal, or deviant. If it takes the same (relative amount of) exertion to build as to break, what is the significant antithesis to thought? Good & evil spring from one/many creative mind(s) and it doesn't seem necessary or feasible to stop the entire thought process because there might not be enough good & too much bad- does it? I guess it's just choice; the choice to think & make or think and take away. But the choice is not labeled correctly either because it relies on judging or reflective patterns of behavior. And assumption that an over prevalence of not so good things is not in the majority's best interests. So majority thought prevails unless it is combatted with counter thought and shown to be shoddy or inappropriate. Does a minority exist within the majority? Yes. But it will be difficult to (over) turn the complacent mind that has found a safe place with enough boundaries to protect it from the antis. 
So, I think about staying on that middle ground and finding a more relevant truth. That either truth exists a little in all three (perceived) parts (good, neutral, bad) or not at all. And what is true may never be completely realized, believed, or fully seen.
								Rate this book:5.0 / 1 vote