Sunday, March 18, 2007

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.

1 comment:

Alexander Ghali said...

discourse on drunken interludes/human behaviour ffrom the writer of "supersonic"?

leo, there is only ego.