Isn't it funny how reality in writing is deemed as 'non-fiction' - why is reality defined only in relation to fiction, or unreality? Something doesn't sound right about that to me. Everything should be defined in relation to reality, not the other way around. You'd think it would be inherent, wouldn't it? Or is the capacity for imagination such that it is automatically better than reality? Though I guess if you go back through humanity's early days, all initial written communication focused on fiction before anything else. Maybe humans are just big story tellers by default. Which would also explain why news has taken the route it now has, it's dominated by gossip and no facts - all listicles and infotainment disguised as news. It's not really about dissecting or analysing real issues. It's about keeping you entertained and happy and unquestioning or critical. There's a vast difference in creative writers and journalistic writers. Yes, we attended the same communication classes initially, but we start to diverge greatly after that. They learn how to weave a story, whereas we learn to hate all flourishes of language and prose, and we become more concerned with process and deadlines. It's no wonder people make up sources or completely fabricate stories to produce something, just something. Facts are not checked, all news is just gossip these days. There's no network of contacts, no real way of verifying information outside of a quick scan of the Internet (if even that). All the estates have failed. Nothing is keeping the system in check or in balance. So where are we? Where do we stand?
Isn't it interesting that nature is an imperfect system? Just through observation, go and watch a tree shed its seeds. Now only very few of these seeds will actually germinate. Why is that? If nature was a perfect system, it would allow all the seeds to sprout, or it would reduce its production to pour resources into making more resilient or easier to germinate seeds. But it is this current system that allows natural selection to take place, and for evolution to really happen. So how does that explain humanity? Think of us as seeds. Not all of us are thriving. In fact, a lot of us don't contribute to the higher order. We can't all have a purpose, we are the seeds that don't germinate. But we don't wither and die. Humans have evolved to allow the seeds to multiply without germinating. We keep multiplying. That's not a sustainable system, because nature can't really work its principles on us anymore. It's delusional to think otherwise. Ergo, we've stopped evolving. We have tamed nature and evolution unexpectedly. The only thing that changes now is genetic variation and certain racial traits. So where does that leave us?
It's going to be another busy day. Doesn't help that I'm tired, but I'm less tired than I was expecting to be. There's no fun for me. Not in any of this. There's no struggle. It's all internal. And just through that, there is no greatness. People say they have the same thoughts, but I disagree, because if they did, their behaviour would change. But why would anyone change? That's not part of human behaviour. There's only change if there's pain or death. But nobody is thinking of the consequences, because then the initial part would be the same.
I think I'm done with the day. Well not just that. These clocks keep ticking.
Joaquin out.
