Why drunks fight

Perhaps not a driving force, but a recognizable pattern of human behavior is that life, from the perspective of a single person, is a contest between the desire for power and the desire for solitude. Maybe those are event a strange inversions of eachother, shadows of a single principle cast in different directions.

Here, the aspect of drunkedness is mentioned in order to narrow upon several assumptions, making the discussion easier. One assumption is offcourse loss of inhibition, and the next being dependent upon the former, is the assumption that loss of inhibition takes a person to a place where the illusion of inherent rationality, the illusion of innate essence, and ultimate, defining reasons, become to slowly disappear. In turn, this places becomes a unique environment unpolluted by the tapestry of reasoning that is woven deeply into our thinking. To be certain, the reasoning is specifically not the reasoning of, or by the drunk, but of those pondering the drunk's behavior. This is an important distinction, and should be thoroughly understood. And in turn again, the said place is a place where the concept of the desire for power becomes increasingly clear.

Without agreeing with the notion, one can surely suppose for moment that a persons behavior is characterized by the desire for power. Power may be defined an a plurality of ways, but becomes easily identifiable in the aforementioned 'place'. The shear and physical power over another person, the experience of it, indulgence in it. Almost like a narcotic, the thirst for this power compels a person and is most euphoric when one has satisfied oneself and only oneself of this power. Some are avid in their approach, yet other becomes induldged to the extent that they begin to cultivate rationality, reasoning and meaning percicely in this desire. This offcourse marks the exit from intoxication and particularly the return of the veil of human rationality, if only in a slightly devious form. At times, one cannot help but believe, or maybe only imagine, that the extent of such a desire mirrors a persons desire for power throughout other caverns of their life. It is perhaps even satisfying to see the such an intimate confluence.

Now let us try to find an alternative interpretation of this scenario, to the introduction of the familiar 'subconsciousness' concept; and also what I just now realize to be a deviation from my initial intentions. The concept of the subconscious is familiar and attractive, posterized along with evolutionary and behavioral theories of human conduct. In essence, when conciously experiencing our own actions, we can see how some actions we can find causes for and others we are simply and fundamentally ignorant of. Fundamentally - because their execution cannot be understood in a mode of thought we are accustomed to. The promised alternative is that subconscioussnes is really just the notion that reasons for things, when conceived, begin to exist at the exact moment, and for the exact duration, of the conception. Their scope is local, temporary and illusionary. Thus maybe things don't contain reasons. After all, who's to say they absolutely have to? So in other words, subconscious is the subset of awareness unpolluted by reasoning. The dysphemic 'polluted' stands there because reasoning is often utlized to assert some sort of fundamental ideas about itself, and basically resulting in an impossible bootstrap. It is uncertain why the strife for these fundamentals persists, perhaps another manifestation of this endless, but bounded loop of cause and effect. Such poor, absurd direction and misuse of reasoning is laughable. Conversely, the realization of this inevitably leads to the thought that conciousness is a balance between understanding of self and ignorance of self.

The desire for power hides in the shadows of self ignorance. To avoid potential confusion, here there desire for power is not a defining reason or explanation, but instead an obverved pattern, a devised algorithm. Through this pattern we glance, maybe even without ever really seeing this place where reasons don't have meaning.

Patterns

With the premise that people eventually develop an idea of what a pattern is, we can sidestep the potentially lengthy and possibly inconclusive discussion of the complete definition of a pattern. Now, we can view a pattern as a structure, perhaps with the additional property of repetition in some dimension. A further interpretation is that a pattern is a set of statements, whose vocabulary may range an entire language. Most dictionary definitions of a pattern will inherit this general form. A different perspective on a pattern lies within the process of its recognition. In a sense, a pattern begins to exist, or have any tangible interface at the moment it is recognized. Thus the recognizer of a pattern contains knowledge of what a pattern is, and what it is not, and also a certain will and ability to recognize it. Then offcourse that which is recognized to have a pattern, or be a pattern does not on its own contain this knowledge, will and ability. It does not contain the concept of a pattern, but is instead is an instance of one, an instance of a concept which is defined strictly in the recognizer. The previous sentences cultivated certain linguistic ambiguities - is a pattern something can be, or that something can have, or both? This ambiguity proves difficult to resolve, due to the inherent ambiguity in the qualifiers is and has. Certainly if we suppose that anything begins to have any definition, or a meaning only when it is perceived, or conceived, then the is qualifier really denotes what something is perceived, or conceived to be. Any questions of the validity of these perceptions and conceptions, are litterally out of scope here, since we do not yet have a clear definition of the idea of validity itself. Notwithstanding the resultant incompleteness of the definition of the is qualifier, it seems possible to further consider the former notions. Overall, the use, or execution of the is qualifier then implies this perceptual/conceptual interaction between an object and the observer. Returning to patterns, the question of whether something can have a pattern, or be a pattern, becomes merely a matter of perceptual, or conceptual interest and focus, which again surfaces the notion of a will - defined in any of the usual ways. In this way, the recognition of a mattern is a sort of match between the recognizers notion of a pattern, and what the recognizer perceives of conceives. The word match, more specifically denotes the existence of some sort of similarity or equivelence class. The case that two objects belong to the same similarity class is thus denoted by the symbol 'match'. The properties and behaviors of this similarity class are essentially isomorphic to those of the notion of being similar. The recognizer then contains the implications of this similarity - more specifically, the similarity between some perceptual information and the concept of a pattern, results in the perceptual information being recognized as a pattern. And thus we behold a pattern. Surely a pattern is more than just an instance of this rather general notion of a similarity class, perception, etc. A pattern exhibits additional definable properties and behaviors, after all, without which this discussion is misnamed. The attempt to discover exactly what these properties are, results in a strange loop. As stated previously, a pattern is a structure and a recognition of a structure is really the process by which the appropriate similarity class is instantiated, percisely in the manner that perception of conception itself occurs. Layering recognition iteself onto a spectrum, one can judge the extent to which a structure may be a recognized as pattern, simultanuously creating another dimension with which to understand a pattern.

Why democracy and lyrics?

To say that painting, poetry and music are all forms art is not incorrect, although I think this unification overshadows important and fundamental distinctions within art and ultimatly the human character. There is a natural tendency to fortify psychological manifolds such that a person can be more logical and mathematical, or more artistic and creative. These classifications blur when great logical insight requires immense creativity.

An interesting observation, or postulate is that maybe there is an essential difference between the art of music and poetry. For me the art of poetry is an perspective of the world from the eyes of this ancient Platonic belief that with knowledge and reasoning as our luminous guides manking can not only know existance, but also correct it. It is a pure manifestation of the will and ego, glowing with the conviction that this will and ego are the creators of our world. Poetry attains beauty like a warrior, by shear force no matter how subtle or disguised. And this beauty belongs to manking, becoming his virtue, his noble frontier. For this warrior, his primary weapon is his passion, a passion elevated beyond any imaginable limits reaching a pinnacle of its endeavor when one is willing to die for it. Hence the image of the dying Socrates is rendered onto the pillar of science and the blissful belief in this will, ego and the impending intellect. Next arrives great suffering. For what greatness can be achieved without suffering?

The art of music, or at least what it should be is all together different. I can imagine a music whose most precious magic would consis in its no longer knowing anything of good and evil, only now and then some nostalgia, some golden shadows and delicate weaknesses would pass over it - a music that from a great distance would behold, fleeing toward it, the colors of a world that has almost become unitelligible. A music that is constantly arriving and constantly receding, but always fading deeper into blissful intoxication. Can you imagine?

But you avoid this pathological estrangement into solitude, and perhaps without knowing, you fear this solitude, you despise it. For you it is an ultimate surrender, a weakness. It signifies letting go of one's will and therefore one's single claim to power. But isn't all existence a will for power? So you would ask.

Herein comes democracy. What a beautiful veil. For surely you of all people, you don't truly believe that everyone is created equal or ever becomes equal, or has equal potential. Instead, in a breathtaking contrast, you bifurcate this world in masters and slaves. These slaves are those whom life offers nothing but their innocence, this innocence for which they journey all their lives, through suffering and self mutilations. They are the devout Christians, those whose greatest pride becomes self-denial, those who learn to love manking for the sake a their master. They are the beholders of good and evil, of heaven and hell. Their entire mentality emanates from the conviction that their existence is a means for their master. Though, underneath this holy fable and disguiese lies the most painful case of martyrdom. It is the martyrdom of knowledge about love, the innocent a desirous heart, demanding love, to be loved and nothing else, with insanity.

You off course, are a master, living in a place beyond good and evil. What you behold is perhaps the greatest orchestration of the belief in masters and slaves - democracy. What beautiful, and poetic illusion is this principle of equality of rights, of freedom, of self government. What better lie to offer a slave than the idea that he is at last his own master? And so this illusion becomes the most powerful narcotic that with every facet of its idealogy shouts the final victory of master over the slave.

You are as much a master as your are a Socratic warrior, armed with knowledge and democracy. You seek, together with the conviction that you can and should, to conquer the world. You see the same sublime design in the verses of a poem as you do in the constitution of a government. What can be admired more? Than Napoleon? Than Alexander the Great? Than Einstein? And ultimatly the victory of mankind over nature?

You are a fearless psychologist, an inevitable unriddler of souls. Fearless because you do not suffocate from pity - for the corruption, the ruination of the higher men, of the souls of a stranger type, is the undeniable rule. The discovery of this eternal hopelessness of the higher man - you stare directly in the eye. You see a conquest and you see a victory.

Yet after all, nothing is clear, for if we become the thinkers in whom all stars move in cyclic orbits we cease being the most profound, the most free. We must look into ourselves as into vast space and see the galaxies, and know how uncertain they are, how they lead into the chaos of existence.