Part one of a three part series
We all have things about us that others find interesting, if they find us interesting at all. It can be jobs, stories, experiences, attitudes, approaches, etc... The things that others seem to question me about usually involve formerly being a cop, playing poker, and a few of the non-traditional positions I take on various subjects.
Two topics that continually run through my mind and dictate almost every attitude I hold on any subject deal with our sense of self and the notion of not actually having free will. Just like most things in life, these topics are very intertwined in my head but they are certainly their own entity and worthy of discussion. However, I've never really taken on the task of discussing these subjects because it seemed impossible for me to lay it out in a way that would convey any meaningful message.
I don't feel my talent is writing in any sense. I'm extremely thankful I loved my typing class in high school and learned the trade. It certainly makes writing my pieces easier. However, I labor at a lot of levels when it comes to putting down my thoughts in text. The first battle takes place simply trying to figure out what style I'm going to use to tell the story. I might know I'm going to write about a specific subject but I create a few different scenarios in my head and run them through several dress rehearsals, usually for days, before even beginning to actually write about the subject. Sometimes I even get about halfway through writing it and then nix it and go a different route. When I actually sit down and take the time to write the piece it usually takes a couple hours (one piece took about four hours -Kukulkan in the Sky With Diamonds- and another took about six hours- He Ain't Heavy, He's A Hologram). I'm not naturally a good speller and have to constantly look up everything. I know I make all kinds of errors in grammar but know most people don't know the rules any better than I do. I don't mention any of that other than to point out the fact I don't think I'm blessed at writing.
My ability, in my mind, is the telling of the story in an entertaining way, hopefully, that makes the reader consider looking at a topic in a new light. Rarely can you catch me offering up proven solutions to anything I'm discussing; mostly I'm simply asking, whether it's interpreted that way or not, others to question certainty. The two things I have wanted to write about and share more than any other deal with consciousness and free will and I've been unable to address them because I've never been able to come up with a template for conveying the message. Finally, I feel like I have an acceptable plan for allowing me the sanity to author the pieces I need to author. I had to break it up into segments and give each one it's due time.
It might seem so simple from the outside. "Just write a piece about self awareness and write a piece about free will," you say. I wish it was that easy for me. I could sense it didn't feel right to just simply write about the subjects but couldn't pinpoint what made me uneasy. It seems I've discovered I felt the need to author a setup piece prior to discussing the two topics that occupy so much of my thoughts.
When I was fairly young I was aware others thought I was smart. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't recognized as a genius or anything, I was just placed in the programs that identified seemingly bright kids. I never felt smart though. I didn't feel dumb either, but I didn't think I was all that smart. I knew smart kids and they seemed way smart to me in a ways I wasn't. They knew so much and could figure out so many things that were beyond me. I got good grades but other kids got good grades too. I never invented anything and was always disappointed that I wasn't creative enough to come up with something to enter into the science fair. I was pretty good in math but there was always a tier of kids that were higher than me all through my schooling. English wasn't my specialty and I hated to read. I found history boring. I just didn't feel like a smart kid.
As I entered my teen years and journeyed through high school I came to terms that I was "a different kind of smart" than the other smart kids. All of the same things were true about me from my elementary days in regard to my likes and dislikes of subjects and externally being viewed as smart but internally feeling like I wasn't as smart as it seemed. But as I aged I began to understand that it was how I looked at things that separated me in the intellect department. (If any of this sounds terribly conceited or arrogant be sure to tune into parts two and three where I discuss the ego and free will and relinquish all responsibility for my behavior and/or abilities). I was confident at this stage that I wasn't solving problems the same way my peers were. I had no idea what that difference was but I knew I didn't come to the same solutions they did traveling the same route. My very close friends were all really smart. I was always the "funny and crazy guy", never the smart one. I could compete with them and challenge them in games of intellect but I rarely won. I knew they were processing and retrieving information differently than me, I was observing it.
I can honestly say that it has been relatively recently, perhaps the last five years, that I finally realized enough about myself to understand how I think about things and how that is different than others I know. It has been my observation that the very bright people I'm around are very good at putting things together building upon a foundation and moving upward. They know and understand things and then they pile on another level of understanding. This is followed by another floor of understanding and then another. Finally, when we look at their buildings of knowledge we see the bright people have a few more floors than other people. They just know more.
I'm sure I'm not alone but I seem to work counter to this when I process information. I tear things down. I gaze at each floor and ask if it's necessary and true. I seek simplicity. I don't need a skyscraper to understand something; I only need to know the ground on which it is being built. If the ground is solid I know all I need to know. The elimination, in my head, of some very traditional loops in which society seems to process information places me in a spot where I often don't share a common reality with my fellow man. Those that live in towers built upon floor after floor of information, whether that information is "true" or not, don't like the idea of someone like me questioning whether their building is stable. If they have a structure of lie built upon lie built upon lie, even the removal of one floor can be a threat.
This isn't to say that however one operates and processes information is better than another way; they are just different. It's certainly possible to be a very intelligent person by building with knowledge and being the architect of a sturdy and towering structure. As I've mentioned, it seems like the bright people I know work this way. I bring up the different approaches because I'm aware it makes communication between the camps (the builders being the vast majority and the tear it downers being the small minority) difficult at times.
I think it is this gap that has caused me apprehension when discussing my views, in detail, about the ego and free will. This first piece (Part I) is a bridge for me. I needed to lay the groundwork of how I tick and why these ideas about these subjects are considered in my mind. I don't come in and buy the building even after I'm assured by the greatest engineers everything is up to par. I come in and purchase the lot and put one floor in place once I'm confident the ground is solid. I'm afraid of heights and don't long to live in the clouds of knowledge. I crave simplicity. Those that purchase sound buildings and live in the lofts aren't incompatible with my approach. Sound knowledge is sound knowledge. However, what seems to be uncomfortable to me is those that purchase condemned buildings of knowledge and then live under the illusion everyone else's building is crumbling.
I know from many conversations I've had with people that there is very little common ground when it comes to discussing the ego and free will. It's my observation that most people have given very little thought to either of these ideas. They are fascinating subjects to a lot of people but they enjoy the illusions and don't want to know how the trick really works, it would spoil it for them. It's because of these failed conversations time and time again that I knew I would fail at conveying any type of message when I finally wrote about two near and dear topics to me.
I opened by talking about things that people find interesting in others. I went on to discuss my attitude about my own intellect at various stages in my life. I know from my own experience that others find it interesting that I question our sense of self and even ponder, quite seriously, the idea that we don't have free will at all. I don't have delusions of grandeur when it comes to my audience. I'm very aware of the very small amount of regular readers I have. I am very comfortable with that. It is because of that I can author setup pieces and talk about all sorts of different things because I know I'm only truly connecting with a relatively small group of people - people that appreciate how it is I think.
When I write the next piece on our sense of self it won't be an argument. Instead it will simply be a journey through my thought process. Same is true for the third piece on free will. I truly felt shackled by the inability to present these two topics in a meaningful way. I feel freed by explaining to you in the setup piece what you're in for ahead of time. These are complicated areas that affect my processing of almost all information I receive. My thoughts on these subjects are very fluid and I'm not concrete on my positions. I would estimate I operate off of the premise that our idea of what we are, our sense of self, is wrong with about a 85% confidence level. I estimate my confidence in the idea that we don't have free will is about 65%.
Trying to quantify and explain in great detail why and how these things make sense to me seemed impossible. And it probably is. What did seem possible was simply sharing the thought process and let you observe how it affects my thinking. At the end of the day I can deliver the consistent message I wish to convey - question things. I feel if I didn't take the time to author the setup piece that the obstacles would be too much to overcome. Objecting to every statement I make or simply being confused and unable to follow would hinder my success of conveying a message. I've known this all along. By reading the subsequent pieces you are agreeing to the terms and conditions.
In a perfect world I would take a break, medicate, and begin Part II. In the real world I will take a break, medicate, and take another break.
No comments:
Post a Comment