11.11.2017
Upon examination of the problem, we have a peculiar tendency to pick a side which we then wade through as far as possible, often up until it fits a specific preconceived narrative in our head. This approach is a good way to analyse specific issues or develop pioneering scientific theory. Unfortunately it also often leads to unbalanced extremes, self-fulfilling illusory aberrations of reality. This being most especially so when the problem at hand concerns the innermost drives, desires and motives of real human beings.
A sensible proposition might be to assume meticulous compartmentalisation of the problem, proceeded by fair analysis in equitable measure, without preferencing one over the other. If we then fashion a process of normalisation, a crystallized refinement of the different truths extracted from every particular compartment, we would most likely get much closer to some sort of an absolute truth.
Be it remembered though, that absolute truth cannot directly be apprehended by the rational human being; so much is likely true. And thus, who are we to claim and effectuate supreme judgement over the lives of others or even life itself? Action enforced by proxy does not absolve the individual from its personal accountability.
What is meant by “action enforced by proxy”?
When the individual rejects the course of its own heart, substituting it with a synthetic model of mind, it is no longer acting out of a place of honest expression. And although now its motives are not even its own, it must be willing to suffer the consequences of its actions, for the actual choice of poison was its own and always is.
“It is easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of action.”
— Stanley Milgram
The conclusion to this idea prescribes the paradoxical cause of action to be inherently erroneous in essence. The unattainability of absolution leaves us with no other option than to simply temper ourselves with the diligent, honest and innocent practice of trial and error. To engage oneself in life, one must be willing to sacrifice the ideal, ironically implying the individual’s unconditional willingness to subject itself to the ideal of absolute failure in order to continue the absolute motion of motions. Life must eat itself to stay alive; one must be willing to bite from the allegorical apple, inviting the stranger into its home, simultaneously accepting whatever may come, in so far that even death itself is welcomed as its dear old friend.
But then, once more, the individual reminds itself of that most simple realization that the ideal of absolute failure itself is subjected to the main idea as well, in identical proportion. Meaning that failure in itself, derived by analogical reasoning, is in fact illusory.