Good, Bad And Downright Mediocre

Only narrow-mindedness can ever afford us the view that things are actually better than mediocre (for the optimist) or worse than mediocre (for the pessimist). For if we take an extensive, wholly unbiased account of all perspectives simultaneously, it becomes patently clear the bad perfectly neutralizes the good.

It is only by espousing a particular perspective that one can ever find good in bad or bad in good, for example. But any single perspective implies limitation which means it can not point to an “absolute” truth.

The “absolute” truth, if you will, would be the entire collection of perspectives on any and every given matter represented on a continuum. This would entail seeing good in bad, seeing bad in bad, seeing perhaps even worse in something merely bad, seeing bad in good, seeing good in good, seeing perhaps even better in something merely good, etc. If all views are accounted for equally, bad cancels out good and as a result, there is nothing but mediocrity, rendering the totality of reality merely lukewarm.

Many aspire to choose, more than likely unconsciously, only those perspectives which see good in bad or see even better in something merely good. We call these fellow human beings optimists.

On the other hand, many identify with negativity, once again more than likely unconsciously, and as such conclude the opposite. They see bad in good or see even worse in something merely bad. We call these people pessimists.

And of those who see things stoically (those that see all perspectives), we call them philosophers.

The road to peace and happiness in this life is “choosing” the perspective(s) that best fit(s) one's ability to find solace in life's mundane and tragic necessities. On the other hand, philosophers see things stoically for the purpose of humbling those who arrogantly assume they possess the "absolute" truth, be it good or bad.

Is Man But Machine?

In many ways, it seems that as we progress technologically, our machines become more like us and we become more like our machines. Our purpose in life seems relegated to being nothing but vehicles to produce and consume “stuff”.

As confirmation of this, one might pay careful attention to the implicit or explicit indicator of a society's success which is almost always based on whether its economy grows from year to year. At some point in the future will we and our machines be one and the same? Or are we already?

Mirror Mirror On The Wall, Who Is The Densest Of Us All?

Most tend to look at a dog chasing his tail as being particularly dense. One might suggest the dog lacks adequate intelligence to realize he will never catch it which probably explains his "dogged" pursuit of it. However, this seems to be predicated on the notion that he necessarily intends on catching it. Might his ultimate goal just be chasing it as opposed to actually catching it? As such, might the dog actually be aware that he will never catch it yet continue the pursuit regardless?

Similarly, might a dog view us as being dense just the same what with our penchant for running on treadmills? Other metaphors to a treadmill could implicate all of us, I'm afraid. What is the point of trying to make more money to sustain a higher life style when in all likelihood this will only necessitate making even more money to support an even higher lifestyle ad infinitum? I can say this self-righteously because I am not motivated by money.

On the other hand, my desire revolves around an insatiable appetite for wisdom. But this is just like money to me. They are essentially the same. Both revolve around wanting to want. Is this not like chasing our tails? Or perhaps like trying to touch a mirage when we know it to be but an illusion? Or being motivated only to win when losing is at some point inevitable? This is akin to chasing a rainbow.

Maybe we are all dense?