Even the most enlightened of us are fucking insane. Insane in a better context than the rest may be, but insane none-the-less.
How many examples of our misled insanity can you spot in a day? I wouldn't be surprised to know that the more cynical persons of society may make a dreary game out of it. It can be hard to spot, from the pedestal of a blissfully ignorant Westerner, but once you break that invisible barrier of a face-value societal interpretation, you tend to see through everyone's veils. I catch myself staring in a mirror sometimes, seeing through my very own veil into what I feel I've hidden from even myself, and that simple idea that I can hide such meticulous yet important details of my own persona from myself frightens me. Why?
Because I am aware that I am one of society's exceptions; someone who, even if I delude myself with such an interpretation, sees differently, and in my personal opinion, much clearer than many others do. It scares me to think that even my philosophically fine-tuned mind can't spot some of the prominent flaws within myself until they make themselves clear, and leads me to understand why there are so many men and women who walk this Earth, blissfully unaware of there great ignorance. Whether that ignorance leads to arrogance and a self-centered interpretation of reality, or the illusion of egalitarianism and understanding, is irrelevant. Although one may be better than the other, grading either would only be buying into one of society's greatest flaws, even if said flaw is verbally, as well as mentally convenient.
It's a strange paradox, however; and my notion seems to be to follow the rest in deviating off the beaten trail. I am fully aware of the fact that I may be deluding myself with sources and influences and opinions which are not of sound state; or, perhaps, no opinion can be of sound state. In fact, that seems to be the case. No opinion is fact, and all fact is derived from opinion; or, at the least, from perception. Even the most unbiased of works are biased, even if in more of a third-person context, considering the works sources may have been poisoned with the emotionally-tainted opinions of there creators. Some may not quite understand what I'm getting at, so here's an example: Winston Churchill, demoralized and emotionally beaten during the Blitz of 1940, writes of the resilience and unity of the British people in the face of such disturbing odds. When he says such a thing, he generalizes, as old, pre-war rivalries between individuals and factions are more than likely to be in continuation despite the greater conflict, and as such, on a microcosmic scale in comparison to the bigger picture, the British people are not entirely unified, which would, in a sense, render Churchill's statement verbally incorrect, as well as emotionally and perceptively biased, as all he is able to see is the bigger picture. Albeit as convenient as the statement was, and may still be in giving a 'gist' of the era's dark and brooding, yet resilient atmosphere, it leads future, self-labelled 'unbiased' historians to take the statement and interpret it as an overlying fact, in the faith that the majority of the British people truly were reflected by its words, and as such, live in the idea that the 'majority rules.'
Democratically speaking, the majority does indeed rule; yet historically speaking, this renders the minorities of the circumstance and situation voiceless, as they are forgotten by history as simply not being. In the event they are remembered, they are seen as exceptions; in a sense, a part of the era, but exempt from the popular bigger-picture.
Life's complicated and confusing when you get into details; hence why many delude themselves by conveniently generalizing.
No comments:
Post a Comment