Cynics laugh most, and hardest

"Wit" is laughing as everyone around you desperately scrambles to learn what you already know—after their circumstances finally make ignorance too inconvenient to maintain—because you also knew, long ago, that this moment would arrive far too late to make a difference. Wit may sometimes appear callous and insensitive to those without the facility to command it, but it is a necessary stress-pressure regulator for the burden of intellect. If you are intelligent, wit will likely save your life someday; if you are a fool, you will grow to resent the sting of wit's refusal to suffer you.

— so, just don't let it.

At some point, we will all need to outgrow language in order to evolve. 

 

What would presently be called hypercognition should be driving all frontiers of all human activity, yet it presently amounts to little more than an experiential—if not strictly introspective—demonstration of insurmountable contextual disparity, made so by the soon-to-be—if not already—vestigial need to reduce critically-fundamental knowledge to local syntax in order to share it. "Gestalt," probably the closest term I know that can even begin to approach this concept, is hardly adequate to describe what is somewhat more than just a concept: a full, invisible, infinite container with no label and for which no such notion would be possible, the net contents of which currently serve only to define the silhouette of a boundary we might and ought traverse if only we chose to remember that we already have - and that this present, limited abstraction of scope is just a crutch of our younger, less mature imaginations. 

 

Language, even at its best, is just crude pictures of real tools. We needed those tools yesterday, and less than we will need them tomorrow. Reduction is critical to the initial formation of our capacity to construct analytical processes, yet is detrimental to the actual growth of such processes. Perception need not be constrained to one or the other... and it isn't.

 

 

All that is needed.... is psychological inertia.

Almost nobody comprehends the nature and significance of sense of agency to net perception. For instance: you're an idiot, and you do something stupid. You know that you chose to behave stupidly; your brain created, stored and connected memory of that stupid choice to its subsequent reality, and as a result you are conscious of the validity of that direct correlation. This mechanism, in fact, is fundamental to the very idea of "knowing" anything. Given the right circumstances and a modicum of potential for intelligence, eventually you could learn from such a mistake.

BUT, if you take your sense of agency out of the equation, the entire perception of events always changes. Say that—instead of making an obviously idiotic choice like before—in another case you get drunk, black out, and do exactly the same stupid thing mentioned earlier. You wake up, and... what? Here's what: in this case, your brain lacks logical proof of your responsibility for the inevitable circumstances derived from your behavior - and, ultimately, you don't feel that responsibility. That's where the problem really starts, because you actually are responsible. You simply lack the data necessary to draw that conclusion intuitively, and, because you probably live in the 21st century, you almost certainly also lack the intellectual discipline necessary to arrive at that conclusion retrospectively.

Here's the fun part that nobody will take seriously because it makes 'em feel "icky": even assuming a 50% higher incidence of male>female rape than female>male (which is completely arbitrary and made up, just to make the point all the more obvious to those who need to feel that they can see the fence before being educated about its non-existence), and arbitrarily expanding the calculable margin of error to +/- 25% for good measure (especially given the abundance of sources from which contaminated data is inevitably going to be drawn and the margin of error inherent in calculating them, etc etc), easily 80% or more of "rape" in this country... isn't. I'm not speaking about semantics or nuance of language, here; I mean that it plainly, logically, factually could not be rape - even if we concede to the (imperfect) current vernacular definition of the term. Ignorance of agency is not the same as lack of agency; only the specific context of extreme impairment can create the disparity of comprehension necessary to allow for such mischaracterization. Objectively speaking, rape cannot be rape in the absence of involuntary physical or chemical coercion, but that's hardly a subject to which the collective intellect of our present civilization can even begin to aspire - so I suppose the scientific reality of the event itself will have to remain a nebulous hipster conundrum for the... next century, probably. Everybody is just so excited to be a victim in this day and age! *shrug*

That's fine by me, frankly, because even more interesting to me is the net psychopathological footprint of the false belief and subsequent delusion-reinforcement experienced by believed-victims combined with the unjust ostracism and subsequent cognitive-dissonance load experienced by rape-accusees following alleged rapes, given that the vast majority of such crimes are strictly false. No data exists upon which one could draw a useful conclusion on the matter, but if I were to go with my intuition, I'd wager that the net burden of all of this ignorance on our society is not at all insignificant. Maybe, a few decades from now, more than a handful of people will be mature enough to discuss it. Until then, innocent men and women will continue to be convicted of crimes that weren't actually commited by anyone, because they weren't actually crimes - and, nearly as awful, the normal process of learning from one's obvious mistakes will continue to be circumvented as a matter of popular entertainment, and the subsequent psychopathological saturation will hang heavily from the intellectual ceiling of our societies. Even the inaction of good people is unnecessary for "evil" to prevail... it simply requires enough psychological inertia.

Hrm. Fascinating. We're almost certainly all doomed. Cheers, then!

At what value of delusion does 0=1? Show your work.

Ya know how sometimes you have to wait for people to completely finish whatever bizarre nonsense they're doing/saying so you can find out if there's supposed to be a deliberate punchline or if it's just their god-awful personality showing?
 
— yeahhh, nah, me neither. Those 90s were good times, though.

There exists a point on the spectrum of human behavior beyond which lack of substance is so overwhelmingly characteristic that it inherits all of the inferred attributes of first order substance. Fuck murder; irony of that caliber should be the capital crime. No wonder our dictionary is becoming more unintelligible and backwards every day.

It's all downright pathological -_- 

(But, hey, on the bright side, if there are cultural anthropologists in our theoretical future, their work involving our time period will be really easy!)

On a completely unrelated note:

What manner of nincomfuckery is THIS!?

We live in a society that tolerates an economy in which an isolated minority profits from net waste despite and to spite the poor majority. 

Much about our lives is like a shitty Tom Clancy novel... but with no hero.
 Haaahaha!

I hope we're just being idiots - 
because, if not, we are insane.