I’ve become obsessed with this idea of perception.
I’ll leave the case open for it being the major culprit
in this poetically deficient stint that’s now dragging on,
the one man, one measure idea of Heraclitus, from multiple
thousands of years ago, occupies me so fully, in attempting
to determine any honest sense of reality. The visceral reactions,
sensations of mind, through the extremities, at sights, at
sounds, at language, surely there must be biological
similarities between each human being, still we debate what’s
normal to no end, and don’t we come to find, through such open
negotiations of the term, that things we fear most often, in hopes that
no one finds out about, are the same? Is abnormalcy the
only thing we can be sure of? Yet, what’s abnormal to me could be perfectly
ordinary to the next guy. Could this not be the democratic standard?
Or does that assume too much commonality? Enticed into believing that
true freedom is the choice between this or that? Unfathomable to me
that one man’s views could lie beyond either platform in a
two party system. You’re with us or against us. It’s going to
rain tomorrow, or it’s not. I’ll sell the movie rights to a story and get
rich, or I won’t. Decision making is that simple. We know that’s not
realistic. That’s just how we do our business, but that’s not how it’s done
everywhere. It barely works here anymore. So to understand what
existence really feels like to those in underprivileged nations relies on
experiences most of us here will never have, still we
argue over actions whose devastating consequences don’t actually
affect us, but what it comes down to is, we all want to be happy, right? Or am I
assuming too much there? Or is what I’m assuming simply
linguistic? My definition of happy may differ from yours. Lots of cars, a
lavish home, fancy clothes don’t play into my happiness. Good friends and
long nights are what it takes for real living, but that’s just my perspective.