My Impenetrable Fortress
Both he who feels himself to have been preordained to exist, and he who has studied and based their absolute belief in the apothegms of the gods of mathematics and science have so much in common than it is often spoken about. Are these not the two men dwelling in symbiosis, with one always feeding the other with lots of hypotheses derived from the archives of their abyss?
Do we not even possess an iota of morbid curiosity to entertain the thought of the question of the origins of our thoughts? Or did we just leave it for the idealist and the materialist to tourney around every time they felt unworthy to own a seat at the table? How terrible is it to die of thirst that we choose to sacrifice our only chance of quenching the ultimate thirst for an immediate satisfaction; the real essence for our curiosity in the first place? Or do we just want to give meaning to ourselves by creating the rollercoaster of events by having to quench bits and bits of subsequent thirsts so that enough people can take credits for each win?
Let us not make a fool of my words, for they do not intend to disregard the tons of material written on the subject. Rather, I question how many of them are not tyrannically inclined, to shove its so-called findings down our throats without enough questioning, so much so that the crime it is designed to solve is being committed.
We like to give so much reverence to Self as though if we were in full control of it and our minds, that's if per your belief, both aren't the same, we could do as much damage as create entire universes, swap constellations and develop our laws of nature.
Questions asked by research psychiatrists are anchored in the position of cognitive relativism to rephrase the questions they've been asking since the inception of time. Mostly when psychological research concludes I wonder how long that stance would last. For every research done, there is a timestamp. But who really cares about the origins of the behaviors found? The neuroscience psychologist? Do we bother to find out if our findings, maybe true, are only as a result of previous constructs? If the conclusions are only variables, what are the constants then? On what axis do these variables rotate?
People take drastic decisions when drastic things happen to them. It is no coincidence that writers today have taken it upon themselves to deconstruct the establishment, though while many of them are still not independently minded enough to attack it to the core, it is worth recognizing. But could it rather be said as "When people take drastic decisions, drastic things happen to them"? Both statements suggest that one thing needs to happen before the other occurs. In extension, we imply that one, in its absolute form, is the absolute causative agent of the other. How bold of us!
However, some basic elements of systems are often so disremembered that they tend to contribute to the 'incompleteness' of the structure the system was developed for. For every function, there is dysfunction to qualify it. Every system contains a function built on its essence of existence that seeks to retribute the reason it was developed. And if every fortress that was ever built was supposed to be impenetrable for the reasons of security, stability and power yet came to its fall, what is to say that we possess anything we claim we possess?
