title: Wandermust (draft)
subtitle: Boredom to Motivate Human Migration
[MEME to be associated “Nomads, because we were happy”]
Boredom, it is assumed, is a fairly universal, recognizable, and linguified term across all modern cultures. If we inspect it as an emotion that has arisen because it offered some survival advantage, what is it’s utility? It tells us to leave a particularly nice area where we may have settled and to keep moving on. This may be way off the true reasons, but perhaps not. A hypothesis relating to boredom through depression, which is quite similar in many of its manifestions, is remedied in some people after ECT, which is well known to cause memory loss. ECT destroys the normalizations imposed by a repetitive landscape. Instead of moving the body and brain to a new location, ECT removes connections within the brain to the stagnant life. Everyday life can become more interesting, albeit a lot more challenging where normalizations and a good memory are requisite; this is why ECT is usually not a true solution but a misguided transferrence that treats a symptom.
Dogs, sedentary man’s best friend, offer an illuminating contrast. Though we cannot ask dogs directly, presumably they do not experience boredom in the flavor or intensity that we do. This relative lack of their ability to feel it would be bound up with their territorial nature. Boredom tells us we have worn out our welcome, and because our loyalties would all lie with our fellow band of humans rather than with a specific place, we could move without any feelings of betrayal to counter balance against boredom. Dogs on the other hand are very loyal to their specific land, and boredom of that land would compete within them and not be adaptive.
We speak of domesticating dogs, as with other animals, but the contrary is probably closer to the truth: dogs domesticated us, or were a greater influence than many would like to think in our own domestication.
2016 Add ins – The need to keep moving (must wander) would logically be linked to our predisposition as a hunted species, and boredom would be an instinctual way of deep rooting this need were we not to have intellectually arrived at it. The guerilla mentality runs deep in us, and it explain to me another lifelong personal trend: I’ve had lots and lots of chase dreams in my sleep—it’s the majoritarian theme of the dreams I can recall, and they’ve always been quite adventurous and usually more fun and thrilling than actually scary. There was always a comfort in the chase dreams that I was always at least one step ahead of my pursuer(s), which were only sometimes of human type. However, it is noteworthy that fear would also be an emotion that would run deep in us, which would give explanation to how fear is so often used to manipulate us. It is a evolutionary vulnerability to say the least.
title: Working Towards Extinction (meme)
title: In Defense Of Hypocrisy: May We Should On Ourselves
“It’s better to should all over other people as you do on to yourself”
“A world without hypocrites is a world without ideas”
Succumbing to the rebukes of a society that would attack an incomplete but evolving praxilogical action when it is vulnerable and in its infancy, is precisely the vast conundrum facing us that stifles and has us stifling our own liberation from many an oppression. Whether we are the “hypocrite” or the one shouting out “hey hypocrite!”, we are choosing to intervene in a process to which we were previously outside of and now deciding to attempt to stop. Sadly for us all, the process in to which we are choosing to add toil to by calling the purveyor “hypocritical”, is often a process which has as part of it something we would want to see realized. The part that follows the normative “should” that the hypocritical speaker was articulating is quite often a beautiful and imaginative idea for a better path to go down. However, too too quickly and too often we fall in to the trap of frustration with our situations and attack and belittle one of our own who shares a common dream. Let’s take an example before any more general ruminations on this matter:
“There should be more farmers” is said by someone who is not a farmer, and it can obviously be attacked as a hypocritical statement. “Actions speak louder than words” might be a reply of someone in the audience, but I would counter that in a society so deeply invested in the symbolic realm as ours that speaking certain words (especially ones that shine light on an uncomfortable reality) is the loudest of actions. The backstory to this farmer advocate and speaker is that s/he might have severe economic or health restrictions, or are time-bound elsewhere. I would urge us to admire that the person even goes out in to the public sphere and braves to speak such a prescription, and tries to influence the minds of their fellow humans (rather than yield and be quiet, giving the corporate media even more uninterrupted time to shout their propaganda that will instead fill all of our minds). Perhaps by saying it out loud and prescribing such an ideal, the person will naturally move closer to realizing it themselves as well. If one always waited to be the perfect example of such-and-such a thing, we would all always be waiting.
Hypocrisy is a necessary stage in the growth process. Unrealized ideals, which are a great part of the human condition, should and could all be labeled as hypocritical, but I don’t think they should have attached to them the negative, pejorative label of hypocrite. Ideas often need to be voiced in their ideal state before they are immediately rushed in to. The human evolutionary adaptation of a grand capacity for ideas will come to include (depending on the person) many ideas that are unthinkably horrific that fortunately we never go on to realize. One might even say out loud “should kill all…”, but then are reprimanded for speaking of violent things; but this is a good thing, for now the person can see a perspective from their audience that shows them that their idea is a faulty one, and at this point no one has yet been hurt or killed by its realization. Calling them a hypocrite in this manner would only serve to cajole them forward—it is more important to be wary and cautious but also firmly replying that their ideas are bad ones. So, too, when someone presents good ideas that they have done little to realize, the ideas should be praised as good ones. Perhaps later on if there is some stagnancy in this “idea stage”, one can try to move the person along towards realization, but a space and time for the evolution of a theory to find its grounding in practice is necessary if any complex and meaningful ideas are given a chance to root in to our world.
We must evolve the new out of the old, which means that despite what newness we hope to usher in with great haste, we will still be mired in much oldness that is stuck on us like clothes, making us appear to be dressed differently than we speak: voices of hypocrisy. For those who are just paying lip service to ideas that they make no clear pathway to ever realize, the word “hypocrite” is reserved. So not all hypocrisies ought to be glossed over all of the time, but hypocrisy enforcement should not be a reactive principle of action which is used in a knee-jerk fashion. It is a concept that should be flexibly understood and applied with a full understanding of the evolving context in which words and ideas unfold alongside—but often before—the things with which they are about, unfold too.
title: Passing On Guns