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.