The nature of television and the nature of the written word are completely different.
I watch television when I want a break from thinking, because thinking and concentrating on a television are irreconcilable.
And then when I get bored with that, I read (and really want to write, as discussed in “The nature of writing is that you have to do it: the exhausting nature of the work which I wish to accomplish.“).
I hate television most of the time.
I only watch it, most of the time muted (as in the case of sports games), when I want the visual imagery to stimulate thoughts, but most of the time, it fails in that regard for long periods of time because of commercials, and the transitions between scenes hurts my brain to concentrate on them all individually.
Sports does an alright job of this, because I can still conceive of them (all of the different camera angles that they cut to) as occurring in one spatial plane, and thus, my brain can comprehend and conceive of what is going on more effectively.
But I watch it muted, because I know that what I want to achieve from watching sports is not going to come from a commentator.
Sadly, there is this ignorant trend that exists within our society to always ask “Are you sure about that?”, and one that heralds ambiguity of absolutes. “Are you sure that this is your favorite food? How do you know if you don’t try other foods?”
Of course, trying new foods can be a good thing, but it goes too far when you think that it is worthy to uphold the ordeal that none of us can find any foods to our disliking, and that we must eat it and eat it and eat it until we find it tasty.
That’s the attitude of the Left: it isn’t about giving things another shot, or opening up your mind: it’s about your will and desires becoming subservient to the ideas that the Left believes that you should have.
And whether or not the ideas of the Left are objectively good or not are questions “left” to countless scrutiny, as all ideas should be held to that standard, and which should be objectively understood and discussed, as I hope to do for all things, but especially those areas of interest to me.
And, as always, this comes back to each individual man’s ability to comprehend truth or not: objectivity. That truth never goes away, and because I am such a big thinker, this question is the only thing I care about in almost every area of my life, and sadly, people on the Left (and in other “directions”) are some of the ones trying to direct my thoughts in the ways that they see fitting, without providing any evidence besides their own wills, but if they have no argument as to why their will for me is more beneficial for me than my own, then they have no value to me. Their argument is typically that I should be subservient to them because it is in my best moral interest to be a listener, but, if they are being honest in their intentions, why is my moral interest more important than their moral interest? This is the altruistic message: that it is better for others to receive than for oneself to receive. But, of course, this is subject to many logical errors, and an intention that does not fit up to the logic (an attempt to achieve end A by means B that cannot work) needs to be recognized so that B can be discarded altogether, if, in fact, A is the ultimate desired goal.
Without this recognition, our actions will prove fruitless for the intended desires that we wish to fulfill, and this has been my entire position all along.
And people, for some reason, do not like very basic, easy to understand premises, and instead attempt to dismiss them with logical fallacies, so, no doubt, this will occur when I provide them with the example that “you can’t cure cancer by rubbing shit all over your face.” Their dismissal of this example, and countless other examples as being irrelevant is part of their problem of not being able to understand that if A is the goal, and B is not working, then you either must abandon B or B becomes the goal, and A changes.
These are the fundamental natures of stupidity and ignorance.
Our emotions, sadly, often get in the way of any objective understanding of any individual area of life. Now, to be clear, this does not mean that emotions are something that we should get rid of. Not only because we can’t, but because they do have value as far as our well-being goes. But the emotional clouding of judgment has been a problem for mankind since the dawn of time, and I believe that it will always be the case.
And when one is faced with negative things in the world, once must find a way to develop the best response that he thinks he can, and that is my attempt with my work and this piece.
Excerpts from “Breaking News: story 2 of the Apocalyptic series”.
To the People that Say “You Can’t Judge A Book by Its Cover”.
An Analysis of my Own Anti-Business Mentality (or my Origin).
Evan Sayet – Understanding How Modern Liberals Think.
Things that I have for sale on Kindle.
Where you can financially support me if you so desire.