Is Intangible Sustenance Marginalized?
Posted: October 2nd, 2014, 12:36 am
I was looking at that ad on this site about Russian dating & got to thinking about how if soemone was freaking out a bit and was saying something like "Why can't I find someone to love me?!" that people would generally think it was someone exaggerating & being something of an idiot or a crazy person, not someone that's having an extremely hard time & this person's conveyed point has a basis in fact. The whole subject seems to be marginalized, actually.
This also gets me to thinking about how people basically disregard how their lives go & only worry about paying the bills. It's been addressed numerous times on this site, but it's like you're immature for trying to have what you want & concerning yourself with something other than work. Same with something being a problem for you- you're somehow immature & pathetic if you don't do something because you don't want to do it. It's actually like an unwritten rule of: "If you don't want to do something, do it."
It seems to also come off like the view is that you're being pushed around to value anything- like that value is something "ruling you" & that you're a weakling. The thing is: If you value not valuing something, THAT IS A VALUE. If you're a p***y for wanting something, you're a p***y for wanting to NOT be a p***y- because that's a want. It's a whole "the desire to rid yourself of desire IS a desire" type of thing.
I've noticed also that someone will tend to come off spoiled if they say "It's not enough" with anything. Anybody else notice that? That general view seems to apply to diminished standards, as well. If someone's incompentant, they're instead be thought of as "good enough."
Maybe it has something to do with the whole "equality" thing? That it doesn't just mean that reality doesn't take a coffee break for anyone -regardless of rank, race, heritage, etc... . Instead it's that someone is wrong & acting like the one of the dictators of old to say that "this" (whatever it happens to be) is not the same as "that" (which is different). There isn't the same instance of person even with identical twins, so no- eveyone's NOT equal.
Maybe there's kind of a background idea of "reality is what I say it is" to that, because for the situation to be that everyone's equal (despite extant disparity) there'd have to be a warping of the situation by designation. Properties don't change by designation, however. It'd doesn;t make sense, but scams don't always have to & neither does insanity. Thinking by adjucation is not accurate.
This also gets me to thinking about how people basically disregard how their lives go & only worry about paying the bills. It's been addressed numerous times on this site, but it's like you're immature for trying to have what you want & concerning yourself with something other than work. Same with something being a problem for you- you're somehow immature & pathetic if you don't do something because you don't want to do it. It's actually like an unwritten rule of: "If you don't want to do something, do it."
It seems to also come off like the view is that you're being pushed around to value anything- like that value is something "ruling you" & that you're a weakling. The thing is: If you value not valuing something, THAT IS A VALUE. If you're a p***y for wanting something, you're a p***y for wanting to NOT be a p***y- because that's a want. It's a whole "the desire to rid yourself of desire IS a desire" type of thing.
I've noticed also that someone will tend to come off spoiled if they say "It's not enough" with anything. Anybody else notice that? That general view seems to apply to diminished standards, as well. If someone's incompentant, they're instead be thought of as "good enough."
Maybe it has something to do with the whole "equality" thing? That it doesn't just mean that reality doesn't take a coffee break for anyone -regardless of rank, race, heritage, etc... . Instead it's that someone is wrong & acting like the one of the dictators of old to say that "this" (whatever it happens to be) is not the same as "that" (which is different). There isn't the same instance of person even with identical twins, so no- eveyone's NOT equal.
Maybe there's kind of a background idea of "reality is what I say it is" to that, because for the situation to be that everyone's equal (despite extant disparity) there'd have to be a warping of the situation by designation. Properties don't change by designation, however. It'd doesn;t make sense, but scams don't always have to & neither does insanity. Thinking by adjucation is not accurate.