The Mind From a Small Room Pt. 3: Ideas Never Die

The Mind from a Small Room Pt. 1

The Mind from a Small Room Pt. 2

Perhaps, reader, this is all by design, and the only One who is to know of the truth about the hidden human agenda, is nobody but God Himself.

This suggestion, that God Himself is the only One to know, or at least a select person or people that one has unequivocal trust in, of what dwells in the “parking garage,” is only put forth because, quite obviously, and this is especially true of the society that we find ourselves in today, anyone would be ostracized from said society if society was to know, regardless of any productivity one would have to offer despite the parking garage of his agenda. Should this, in turn, eliminate the practice of radical honesty entirely, but is radical honesty not the method, because it may not be, in which one would remove floors from the Agenda Hotel, cultivating a character that is only an end, without means? As far as I can tell, the following questions are in play regarding the hidden human agenda: Should the goal of man be to remove as many floors as possible? If so, is radical honesty the way to do that? If so, does radical honesty, in the end, as in the beginning it surely does not, improve one’s relationships with others, and does it push society forward instead of backward? If, for example, a married man was to practice radical honesty at all times, for radical honesty is not radical honesty if it is only practiced sometimes, telling any woman that he wants to sleep with, that he does want to sleep with them, if indeed he does, he would then be under an obligation to inform his wife of such matters, as radical honesty would not be in practice if he were not to. Is the man’s marriage not in jeopardy? Certainly, it is, reader, but is this not the removal of floors from the Agenda Hotel, which could be the goal of man!? I am inclined to declare that radical honesty should be practiced; however, if I were to say that, I would, in turn, need to have the fortitude or the stones required to practice it, and at this present time, I do not, as sometimes I am a pussy; other times, I am not.

3

Can you simply choose to believe in something, reader, or is belief something that against our will, through experience, just happens? Do we have a say in the matter? Are our beliefs not determined by events or interactions that we cannot predict – that we have no control over? Let me not carry on making a case for only one, as it appears that a reader or listener can become fixated on whatever the latter is, whatever it was that was presented last. One can, absolutely, decide to believe in whatever they please, and it is seemingly evident that one could will that belief into existence. For example, the decision to believe that oneself is a loser, or a winner, if told to themselves enough times, by either oneself or another, will undoubtedly come to pass. This is so, reader, as I do not see a plausible argument to the contrary; however, it is also so, using the above example specifically, that one’s chosen belief could be true or untrue, as the belief is developed by self-manufactured evidence, which is permanently subject to change. With the impermanence of manufactured evidence, contributing to a manufactured belief, presumably understood and agreed upon, are we not on a collision course with the experience of life eventually challenging these beliefs, and does this not mean that in order for a belief to become concrete, if it could ever be, that it must come by way of experience first? This, of course, brings the human agenda, accompanied by perception and manipulation, into play, for will I not bend reality and shape an event so that it may fit my chosen belief? I, or we, most certainly will, but we are still left with the unanswered question of whether it is truth or untruth, for is this manipulation not something which we are conscious of, or are we truly unaware of our willingness to contort the fabric of being to our favor?

Whatever the case may be, whether belief is product of experience or not, it is true that a chosen belief can otherwise be stated as merely an idea, which is the only thing that can be believed in – an idea. We have often heard the phrase, “faith is believing in something without evidence,” with the ones who utter it parading it in the face of believers, as if it some sort of “gotcha moment,” all the while without the understanding that it is impossible to believe in something with evidence. Here is the soundbite, if you want one: There is no such thing as belief in something with evidence. For example, what exactly is it that humans have done upon hearing of the moon landing? “Why haven’t we been back since?” they ask! Evidence only presents more ideas, which only means more belief, running humans in an endless circle. Of course, there are those who believe in the moon landing outright, and it must be said that they may, perhaps even most likely, are correct in their belief, but is it not true that they are taking the word of another – the same criteria one uses to criticize a believer of religion? If you will allow me to provide an example of lesser magnitude, because I do not want WordPress to receive emails calling WYSB a conspiracy blog, which by the by, you should know that I did not make a personal case either way, but let us take the example of the fanatic of a sports team. The sports fan believes that his team will win; maybe he believes that they will lose, as is my case more often than not, using the team’s performance in previous games as evidence as to why they will win or lose. At the game’s conclusion, evidence has been provided, either confirming or denying their belief, but what has happened other than the presentation of a new belief, or idea, that they may win or lose the next game?

I had never believed in the idea of love-at-first-sight. All logic and reason would point to this idea being one of gullibility, wishful thinking, or hopeless romanticism, as one would point out the obvious that there could be no true love for someone whom we know not a thing about. Fair enough. However, the only thing that matters in an idea’s inception is that there is, indeed, an idea. It matters not if the idea of love-at-first-sight is real or not real, for since there is such a notion, either way, it can now be challenged by life itself, as our notions always will be. There had not yet been an experience that brought me face-to-face with my idea. Nadeja, from The Ocean Blue’s of Nadeja, was inspired by a woman I have met only twice, and that perhaps, I shall never meet again. Still, the interaction was significant enough for my chosen disbelief of love-at-first-sight to be challenged. Her eyes gripped me upon first glance. She must have thought I was a creep! There is not a time that I can remember where I had approached somebody, straight away, in a sort of “have-to-have-her” fashion. Typically, I drift into Neverland, a dream world, calculating my every move, my every word, before daring to make conversation with someone. Although nothing came of our short span “together” due to me being sometimes a pussy; and at other times, not one, her purpose in my life had been served, as far as I was concerned, no matter if she felt there was a purpose as well. Disbelief in love-at-first-sight had been challenged. One may, understandably, conclude that evidence had been provided that it is not real, considering that nothing manifested between the two of us, but even if that were true, that the evidence proved love-at-first-sight false, it is only because of that reason that the idea is still very much alive. Why, that is the most magical thing about ideas! They are immortal! Ideas can never die. It is because of this unique, even failed experience, that I see the very real possibility of love-at-first-sight in anybody I lock eyes with. Lord, please do not let the real-life Nadeja read this, as she may phone the police. Fuck it. Her name is Becklassandra. Now, there can be no discrepancy unless, of course, you have an idea that it is you, which in that case, it shall never die.

A no-no in the writing world, as I am about to break the “fourth wall,” but I have just completed writing The Ocean-Blue’s of Nadeja: Night 3. It has been in my mind that there will be four nights, making the upcoming writing of night four the finale of the story of Zigmund and Nadeja. The fourth night of Zigmund and Nadeja can go several different directions, depending on my worldview, which is interesting, as I’m not quite sure what that is yet. From my experience, judging from the behavior that I have seen humans partake in, what would happen is that neither party shows up for the fourth night. It is difficult to get a grip on how to approach the fourth night, as I want to write the truth about what I have seen. However, this surely would be an anti-climactic ending to the story, albeit, what I believe would happen, and I did not sit behind a keyboard to disguise the truth, reader. The second scenario is Zigmund, which, fine, to some degree is myself, although I want to stress that he is only myself to some degree, shows up, but Nadeja does not, offended that the opportunity for something great was missed out on, due to a distraction, or contextually, an old idea. Finally, the third scenario is one in which Nadeja appears, but Zigmund does not. Originally, I felt that this would be the case most rare, but it is, unfortunately, very high in likelihood that Zigmund would descend into old ideas. In any case, as it stands, the purpose of Zigmund and Nadeja’s interaction with each other has been served, as they are both left with ideas of what could be, or at least what could have been; and it is because they have these ideas that the game of life continues, for if they were bereft of ideas, they would be “dead,” so to speak, at least in the context of their personal interaction. Whatever happens in the fourth night, going forward, any woman Zigmund encounters, or vice versa, any man Nadeja encounters, the encounter contains within it the idea of the other.

If you will allow me to digress for just a moment, I am taking issue with my previously written idea, the one suggesting that “ideas never die!” Is this true, reader? I have given consideration to scraping that excerpt entirely, but is this not The Mind from a Small Room? Is this not, in some ways, a journey into how the mind operates? Since that is what I thought, at least initially, it shall stay. Let us attempt to make the case that ideas do, indeed, die. When an idea is no longer actively pursued, is it dead? Allow me to use another sports-oriented example. A few years ago, I was in active pursuit of generating traction to a podcast or blog of my favorite sports team. After some time, the desired amount of traction was not manifesting itself, possibly- probably rather, because true, one-hundred percent commitment to the project was not put forth, and I stopped pursuing it. It is extremely probable that I will never attempt to put that idea in motion again. This being the case, the question becomes, again, is that idea now dead? Understandably, one may declare it dead, for if it once was, is now not, and shall never be again, is this not death? A stronger example might be a woman who was previously in a relationship for X number of years, who now finds herself in a new relationship. Picture this woman out with her friends, one of her friends bringing up the relationship of old, and the woman greets this presentation with a roll of the eyes. An eye-roll, by the way, is definitely symbolic of something being “over,” or you could say, of death. Well, is this not, then, death? They once were, they are now not, and they shall never be again. However, what exactly were to happen, if say, the man she is in a new relationship with engages in behavior that is representative of the way her ex-boyfriend behaved? Does at least not the idea of the ex live on!? How about every time I watch my favorite sports team play? Do I not think, if even for a fleeting moment, knowing what I know now, that I could resurrect the old idea, and does this not mean it lives on!? After all, if you were to google “The Wet Island Los Angeles Kings,” somewhere out there, the idea does, in fact, still live. Of course, reader, we must factor in the human agenda, as it is possible that I am manipulating examples in a fashion where I cannot be wrong; however, right now, it is my idea, which cannot die. Feel free to try and kill it.

Now, finally, we have come to the main event: The idea of God. . . To be continued.