Our Holographic Selves

This evening, I wanted to order pizza from Domino's. The only economic deal they really have involves order 3 pizzas. Now I wouldn't just order that much without people to eat it with, so I was thinking about who I could call over to just chill, eat pizza, and maybe watch a movie. I was taken aback by the realization that locally there are so few people I could call who would be unpretentious company. By unpretentious, I mean people who you can just be around and not feel like you have to be somebody – or rather, uphold some image. When did culture become so superficial, shallow, and dare I even say political? I am not removed from this judgment at all, but am merely observing this phenomenon. Why do we project such holographic personalities as interactive facades when our real, 3D selves are readily available? I don't even think it's a matter of choice for the most part, as it's become second nature and ingrained into our consciousness. Why is it so rare, at least it seems to me, to acquire company who doesn't judge, but just let's you be without discrimination? That's why I love occasionally indulging in weed and the one time I did shrooms. It allowed me to consciously become that person who doesn't judge – to accept those I was with for who they presented themselves to be – and be completely tranquil with my surroundings. But why should it take a substance to initiate this frame of mind? Humans are vastly capable beings with boundless aptitude for all things. Because of this great potential, we have yoked ourselves toward projecting illusory selves and other inauthentic activity. You may notice that it is often the "slow" kids – who are often made fun of – who are the most genuine beings, barring no pretension in their words or deeds. I refuse to believe such a disposition to be a lesser form of humanity. Just as the innocence and imaginations of children should be heeded for their inherent worth, so too do I think we should take note or the proclivity of those we regard as mentally challenged. We cannot afford to be so arrogant as to baselessly condescend anyone at all. Each of us has inherent worth and consequently something – if not a multitude of things – to offer society and one's fellow man, no matter how minuscule the impact.

Returning to the initial inquiry, I think that we conduct ourselves with such pretension (notice the word 'pretend' seems innate inside pretension) because we fear that our true selves will be judged, and worse, shunned and rejected for falling short of another's expectations. The reach of our insecurities, whether realized or subconscious, is far and wide – successfully internalized and pervasive enough to parasitically dictate our every action and reaction when considering its intended effect on others. What is it to know someone? To penetrate the protective guise that we purport, I think, and come to understand the motives of one's actions – that might be called knowledge of another. Knowledge of self is a whole separate matter. Few people, it seems, are reflective enough to observe their own maya, and fewer still adept enough to change it or cast off the veil of illusion. Not everyone is ready to be unplugged; this is true. Most are so hopelessly dominated by their own sense of purpose – the mere sugar coating over the self-infatuated bullshit in which they live – that to 'unplug' them would only unsettle them into a begrudging, fruitless existence.

There is no conclusion that I have reached here, only extrapolating the observation that we are unnecessarily convoluted beings who grapple with our sense of self by seeking authenticity and acceptance therein and without.

Everything for a Reason

I often wonder at the phrase 'it wasn't meant to be' or 'everything happens for a reason'. While I in my smug cynicism have tended to dismiss such remarks as existential cop outs, they are of undeniable merit. Sure, it makes life easier when we attribute the events in our lives that we don't understand or can't come to terms with to a higher order order or Reason (Logos) – with or without religious undertones – but are they founded at all? Are we arbitrarily less culpable that despite the implications of our actions, we might be exonerated and detached from our fruits since their seeds may have been mysteriously planted by something greater than ourselves? I think it's bogus, yet it helps us make coherent and sensible the world in which we live. Stating that everything happens for a reason is merely biding one's time until one can rationalize that reason, or until one forgets to do so. Failure to do so leads to bitterness and resentment that, without the mechanism of higher planning at work, would most likely dominate our psyches. Nobody questions the mundane things though. Nobody ponders over a glass of spilled soda, wondering what the greater reason behind it could be. We only justify the pivotal happenings in life – the ones that unless explained or made sense of, we arrive at an impasse of how to proceed in the manner that we had previously done. Such an existential impasse is only superseded by direct answers, or the catch-all Reason that directed a given event. Does everything happen for a latent reason? Sure, I'll acquiesce until I come across a better system of reconciling creative happenings in life with their lack ofimmediate justification.

The other side of the Mobius Strip

For the longest time I have been convinced of the depressing, pressimistic nature of the first Noble Truth in Buddhism. Everything in life is suffering, even the good times because they are transient and must eventually succumb and dissipate. This exact notion has caused me to wake up feeling hopeless for the last two weeks, but what if the we flipped the script? Maybe misery is not the default state that all other emotions must submit to. What if it is suffering that is transient and that must always go back to joy. Joy would be the eternal constant every other emotion harks back to, and suffering is just a phase that must eventually be transcended to reach joy again. Suddenly, Buddhism doesn't appear so gloomy and grim anymore. Life is exactly what we make it out to be – what we create it as – and nothing more. It is the dialectic that we must keep in mind, otherwise we will fall victim to it without knowing it.

Paradox

It makes sense that in the four Noble Truths, the Buddha meant craving instead of desire as the term and its connotations are more applicable to the purpose for which it was selected. However, I am having a hard time grasping the concept that craving Enlightenment is not actually craving, but just a process of assuming the practices condusive to reaching such an end. As Williams states: "A Buddhist wants enlightenment in the sense that wanting something is a condition of freely and intentionally engaging in practices to bring it about" (44). Concordantly, it would go against Buddhist doctine for Buddhists to want enlightenment, yet is it not the object of their ideals? The logic follows in a sort of paradox, but it is there. Since the Buddhist path is designed to cease all cravings, to desire enlightenment is to desire the practices that will put an end to cravings after enlightenment. Put simply, to want enlightenment is to want the practices that will cease craving after enlightenment is reached. So in effect, normatively, enlightenment is not the object of desire, but it is the path to it that one ardently seeks. Enlightenment then is just what following the desired practices should yield if done correctly, and so it should eliminate craving thereafter. When reformatted as a syllogism, one desires an end to desire. But because it is a syllogism, the middle step prevents the ending of desire from being the object of desire. Somehow, in a twisted Buddhist way, it all makes sense.

A droplet of inspiration...

I am God. I am in control. I create this world and I can destroy it if I so choose. The knowledge is empowering, but deeply frightening. Everyone is a god once they gain this knowledge. In a world full of gods, is this Heaven on Earth? What do gods do other than create and destroy? We forge meaning, material objects, relationships, and anything our mind can conceive. We are omnipotent to the extent of our imaginations and the laws that govern the earthly vessel we occupy. The only real question, then, is how do we wield this knowledge – this power – in a mature way? How do we make use of it beyond puerile tendencies for instant gratification, attention, and other trifles? That is the question I will attempt to answer through reflecting on more questions as they arise.