Philosophical Funk

Whatever suffering I see or hear about that relates to others, and most of my own suffering, is fairly easily explainable. Most commonly, these sufferings are related to an event or series of events.

Certainly some 'mental illnesses' have known causes such as injury, chemical imbalances, metabolic disfunction, and such. Some, however, seem to defy explanation, but eventually will become understood as science (read as common knowledge) progresses.

So, am I mentally ill?

What I encounter frequently that leaves me bewildered is the questioning of my motives, and not believing me when I go to the length of proving it to them. It's almost as if my efforts are counter-balanced with 'becoming invisible,' and not the 'expected or probable result.'

I would have to get overly personal to explain how this phenomenon has affected me, but I suspect that van Gogh, with his relative lack of success and acceptance, would have experienced this phenomenon to a greater degree than I have.

Howard Hughes comes to mind as someone who seems to have succumbed to 'philosophical funk,' and whose personal success and acceptance would put my level betwixt the two in measurement.

Hughes was publicly accepted and lauded, but he ran into something similar to Ricardo: others with equal or better qualifications disputed his theories. Hughes made a couple tons of wood fly - one time. His principles would not allow him to earn personal reward once he determined his objective was unsafe. That wasn't failure, but history rather regards it as such. To wit: the Wright brothers are highly regarded aviation geniuses. In reality, they merely beat other people to success. Hughes, on the other hand, defied gravity that even Leonardo da Vinci may not have been able to imagine. No one has ever done what Howard Hughes did - no one!

Was it the constant confrontation with 'rock-solid constitutions' and 'Aristotlean know-it-allism' that finally led to his 'apparent mental collapse.' I had to throw a recycling can at my garage to get my solitude; he would obviously have to farther, whereas van Gogh had solitude cast upon him.

Mathematically, sharing enlightening information should result in a brighter world, but it seems to result in a 'type of invisibility,' which seems mathematically logical: as the source of light becomes more distant and less visible, so, too, would the light from source be ineffective for brightening that which it cannot reach.

Does the world really just turn 'blind eyes' toward the light of genius? Keynes experienced it in his final years. Einstein had to die wondering, or knowing, if the theory of infinite atomic splitting will destroy anything that passes through 'that time' later, and we merely sped away from it at the speed of light. They were both very highly regarded, and explained it all to important people. Both of them had their limitations and subsequent appeals ignored. It's as if the world accepted some light, but then started doing its 'invisibility thing' to them.

Though the soul is where I should be analyzing this from, doing so will only end up with the likely result of angering others. My body transformation will have to suffice for now.

The last time I saw a doctor, I was told that I was starting to leave the 'overweight' category, and heading into the 'obese' ranges. I heard that, and started analyzing how and what I eat. I cut out a few of the fattier parts of my diet, and increased my vegetation consumption. My weight hovered, but didn't rise or fall noticeably.

Last October I finally had my teeth pulled and purchased dentures. I could feel toxins leaving my body; I suspect those led to some metabolic changes, but what really changed was what and how I eat. Suddenly chocolate lost the part of the flavor that no longer could get to my upper palate, and it left a gooey mess in my mouth. Fruits became much more satisfying. I have more time to prepare meals now, so I do.

Since then, I've lost substantial weight. I have no idea how much because I don't know what I weighed, and I don't know what I weigh now. The number is unimportant; what is important is that the weight loss is highly noticeable. My former size 38 pants have been reduced twice to a current 32 inch size. People are amazed, but are also concerned. They tie extraordinary weight loss to illness. They ask me if I'm sick and if I'm eating. I lift my shirt to show them that I'm fit, not skinny. I show them that I've increased my flexibility to the point that I can bend sufficiently to put my forehead on either of my knees. I show them the food I've prepared and preserved, and offer to prepare a meal for us. If they accept, they are usually amazed at the well-balanced meals I throw together.

Then they say 'wow! Are you sure you're not sick and that you're eating?'

Even proof isn't sufficient to ease suspicion of my motive for the weight loss, which is simply because I want to feel better and it's worked in accomplishing that end.

At the other pole are those who think that my 'apparent zeal for health' should mean that I would quit smoking cigarettes. When I tell them that my motive is to 'feel better,' and not to achieve 'optimum health,' they don't seem to understand. They want to run with the lineal concept of 'if one is good, two is better.' They cannot accept the 'conceptual thought' that 'if one is the objective, two is excessive and will use energy/resources that I prefer to use differently.'

Others cannot seem to accept simple motives. They want to add complexity to the equation, and begin trying to figure out 'why, if the line goes further, don't I want to as far up the line as I would be able to.'

If I try to explain how gravity would likely affect me if I did that, they try to get back to numbers. Even smart people, and even really smart people, don't get the correlation between physical laws and, well, everything. Worse yet, they don't even seem to want to understand so they can progress through the educaional scale (1. not knowing and not knowing we don't know; 2. not knowing and knowing we don't know; 3. knowing and not knowing we know; 4. knowing and knowing we know). They are willing to reside at one, but why?

It gets really depressing. It is often frustrating. It is so common that it progresses to an 'apparent reality' that effort to enlighten is futile.

People don't understand how I can walk away from 'a good job' merely because the employer puts numbers ahead of concern for human suffering. I don't understand how others can do those jobs. 'It pays well' or 'it pays the bills' are common reasons that can be combined to form 'for the money.' They will accept money in exchange for their conscienses?! Do they understand how this affects one's soul?!

Of course they don't. They don't even accept gravity except to the degree 'they think' they see its force, when, in fact, they don't really think much or often.

The integrity of conscience is such that consciences tend to bruise. It is less painful to just not confront the rocks with which people build their figurative walls and figuratively throw at others with the intent to harm. Reclusion becomes the only place a genius can insulate himself or herself from the perceived realities of common thinkers. It comes at the cost of companionship, but companionship doesn't matter so much because it lacks intellectual stimulation.

How about Ben Franklin? He died famous and revered. He also died before he could see much of the manifestation of his governing genius, but he was well aware of what time would do as is exemplified in his final speech to Congress. Ben Franklin is still well loved, and is still regarded for his genius. However, his 'timeless thoughts' about liberty are rationalized as 'not applicable' today because we're facing different variables than those which, with historical perspective, we can see were just. We think that without much regard for what happened to the native 'Indians,' how the country expanded on the backs of negroes and Chinamen enslaved for the 'benefit of all,' or how Columbus could possibly have 'discovered' land that was already inhabited.

And yet, many of the ancestors of the slaves and Indians feel that, in order to achieve equality, things must go out of balance the other way for a while. How does that work? Isn't racial blindness achieved by not seeing races?! Isn't gender blindness achieved by not seeing genders?! Why is that level of simplicity so complex to common thinkers? It seems to be that they want to complicate the equation to find the 'hidden motive.'

Are they looking at their own reflections? They have to be drawing off the subconscious for the decision to 'not see that which is visible.'

Mark Twain said he never let education get in the way of his learning. Some people don't even let it get in the way of their ultimate demise.

God, it seems so futile.

Back to the project; slow progression is good for common thinkers, and God knows common thinkers are slow. Perhaps God, or time from my perspective, just requires genius to go through complete concepts with the 'pre-design' of 'life' accepting only minescule portions of the whole for its slow progression.

Here's a relativity example that keeps coming to me. I presumed it was meant for a discussion on what appears to be photographic memory, but it is being persistent. If I were to run a footrace against my granddaughter, I would 'appear' to be very fast. If I were to run that same footrace against a world-class sprinter, I would 'appear' to be very slow. In that example, I not only would be the same, but I even qualified it as 'the same footrace,' making it exactly the same.

There, it's now written. What was the point?

It's time to think. Bye for now.