I don’t aim at nailing it. I aim at debating it (if only with myself), or at least exposing our biased thinking (if only to myself).
[ 2 min read ]
Whenever I put out one of those philosophical texts, like yesterday, I assume (and probably not without reason) that many people will think that I think that I nailed it (like Buddha, Jesus or some other sage), and that I’m trying to sell them on a certain life philosophy or version of “reality”. Like I was doing all this with the purpose of establishing some kind of a new (or not so new) religion / dogma and convincing people to follow in my footsteps. And since most of it flies in the face of everything we know about life and living many will also think that I’m simply mad / that I’ve lost it.
Not that I care whether or not I am mad. To me being mad in our society is tantamount to going against the current / being different than the “normal” majority which is considered normal only because people assume that so many people can’t be wrong or that people from their clan can’t be wrong now and couldn’t have been wrong in the past. It’s not being mad mad (like being mentally deranged, having some actual brain damage — in most cases it’s simply believing some other shit, not being part of the mainstream). Really, nothing against being mad in a sea of so called “normal” people. I’m even flattered when somebody calls me mad.
Screw following me! I don’t aim at rallying disciples around me. Neither do I hope to build the next political party.
It’s all a debate. Just a debate. Thus the things I write they don’t need to be accurate. The purpose of those texts is to shake things up / challenge the status quo / attempt to expose our biases and comfort zones.