I Hope They Laugh When I Die

Today I said that I laugh at negative experiences, which caused quite the uproar from other people in my class. Either they didn't understand what I meant, or they disagree, either way I love them no less, in fact, I'm laughing.

My reasoning behind laughing at negative experience is complex, and I will try to explain it for myself more than anything. Heeeeerreeeee we go.

First off when I say I laugh at negative experience I mean it metaphorically. When someone special in my life dies, I don't crack up. I believe that in the moment, pain and sympathy and all those emotions are quite necessary, out of both respect and natural reaction. Looking back, I want to be able to laugh at everything. Not literally, but I do wish to be able to find an amusement, a positive response to the things that affected me. This is strictly personal, I can only find amusement in the things that have played a part in my life. So I look back at it all, my depression, every mistake I've made, the loss of friends and relatives and I find solace in the amusement of it all. I appreciate them as the ingredients that make my life what it is.

Now the last paragraph describes the 'what' here is the 'why'.

I stopped believing in the conventional forms of God a long time ago. I will not pretend that I am right, but that is what happened. I don't believe in any holy text that has all the answers to life death and the hereafter. I don't believe in Divine Intervention at all. Most atheists or agnostics would agree with me here. But my issue with embracing this hands off, no rules God, or the lack of a God at all creates issues, which go largely ignored by those who claim to be atheists. Assuming there is no divine being establishing a 'right and wrong' how do we know what right and wrong are? Or is there even such a thing as right and wrong at all? Every society is based on laws or rules or customs, all of which come DIRECTLY from religion. Why is it illegal to kill? Because killing is wrong. Why is killing wrong? Because a religious text outlined it as so, and then it was accepted as convention. Morality in and of itself is a religious creation. It exists because we perpetuate it, it stems from religion. Now given all these facts, to say that you disagree with religion would be to have to come to totally logical and rational conclusions about these things and why they exist. If I don't believe in God or Hell, why follow any of these rules at all? The only conclusion I could come to was that there are natural positive and negative reactions to things. Some things make me happy, others make me sad. There is a sensation I appreciate, others make me hurt. Now this is true for the people around me as well. No outside influence of what is right or wrong, these hold true. One of the things that makes me feel good, is making others feel good, so one could claim that in life you should strive to make as much good for yourself and others as possible. And now you have established a code of 'morality' that is largely applicable to the people you meet and interact with. The things that make me feel good probably make others feel good, and I should interact with them accordingly. Now the only gap in the logic between this and religious based morality is the justification for the bad. Why does it exist, if not from some inherently evil force? I understand the evolutionary necessity of physical pain, but what about emotional pain? Why does it exist if not protecting me from some danger? I could not come to any sort of conclusion that didn't rely on the existence of some higher power or innate drive towards a collective spirituality. So I concluded that it only exists because we let it. The negative emotional response to things only exists because we lack a positive emotional response to them. So without a moral disposition to something being bad, we can refuse to let it be. And that is exactly what I do. I look back at heartbreak, and laugh. I look back at death, and laugh. I look back at depression, and laugh. Not because its funny, but because I refuse to let these things impact me in a negative way. I am not predisposed to feeling bad about them, so why do it? You can eliminate all the hurt you have ever felt by not looking back with an expectation of pain.

Now obviously this is a coping mechanism. I am not going to pretend like I discovered the key to solving all the worlds problems with the simple 'If I don't acknowledge it as a problem it doesn't exist' mind state. But people always ask how I stay so positive, how I stopped holding grudges etc. and this is it. This is the conclusion I came to that makes me who I am. Ideally I would like a world where this was unnecessary. I want to look back and see no negative experience to laugh at. But that is not the case, as much as I try to work towards that goal.

So at the end of the day, if you are not laughing at my funeral, you really didn't know me all that well.

By Necessity

I can't definitively believe in anything. Once I would have said I can't definitely believe in anything I can't witness (god, assorted scientific theories etc.) but after truly pondering what reality is, I realize that what I see is not necessarily anything at all. I disagree with the famous 'I think therefore I am' premise. The act of thinking is used to prove the act of existence. The reasoning being that I as an entity have to exist in order to be able to think about weather I exist. What if I don't exist, and neither do my thoughts? Or what if I do exist, but my thoughts don't? Supersensory experiences are considered 'hallucinations' or things outside of 'reality' but how can we define what reality is the real reality? What if hallucination breaks the mirage, and takes us back to reality? I don't necessarily believe this either, but since neither side has anyway to prove itself, it must be considered.

This dilemma is what forces me to put faith in experience. It is the only faith I can place that evokes both a spiritual, mental, and physical response, which is the only (but not necessarily the most effective) way to 'prove' that this 'reality' is real. When I DO things, experience things, it fuels a nameless drive. I define my existence by what I do. I prove my existence through response, both internal and external to the things I do. That's why I have to be doing something at all times. It reminds me that I still (naievly) believe that I am real.

The Mountain

When climbing a mountain, one spends considerably more time going up, and going back down, than they do actually on the top of the mountain. So while end goals and desires may inspire the journey, the reward is not logistically worth the struggle. And I think that's because the journey is the reward. We as a species just seem to have forgotten that. So remember, you are already living the best part of your dreams.

Life can't be an 'ends justify the means' system, because the 'end' is worth no more than the begging, the middle, or the now.

Addicted To Experience

I always said I had an addictive personality. At first I thought it was some genetic disposition to addiction, particularly to material things, but after quite a bit of thought, I have realized that I am addicted to experience. I am addicted to 'doing' or 'being' or 'living'. I want to go adventure, because I want that experience. I want to meet people, I want to try things, and I don't get addicted to the individual things, I am addicted to the experience enhancement. Now I am split between justifying this habit and suffocating it.

As far as justification goes, I would say that in my opinion there is no purpose to life. Or at least that there is no purpose given to life. I think purpose is a premise that we create, which in no way shape or form minimizes its worth. So for me, handed a life without meaning or purpose, it is only logical to take that life through the most diverse array of experiences I can, to find said purpose. Now the main conflict I came to with this thought process is that without a 'higher' purpose, the journey of the experiences is only limited by the drive to keep experiencing. So in a sense, if I were to do something that made me feel like there was nothing more to experience, the will to live disappears. Without any sort of moral predisposition, strictly viewing my body as a vehicle for experience, this risk stayed ever present. But similarly, without a purpose, who gives a fuck? Death in and of itself is an experience.

Now on the flip side, the justification for the antithesis of the last proposition, which I have also been pondering. It would seem that if life has no purpose, the creation of a purpose should not be something to strive for. In the avoidance of a purpose, each and every moment is appreciated as the total embodiment of existence, nothing more valuable, nothing less valuable. There is no inherent good, there is no inherent evil, there only IS. So live each moment, as it is. There should be no desire to strive for any 'experience' at all. So what would the purpose of stimulants be? Nothing. There would be no need to try them. The downfall here is that it is equally dangerous in the death realm. To not believe in your own existence as anything other than interpretation of useless events should remove any fear of pain or death at all, because those things too are useless.

For now I walk somewhere in between. Looking to experience the universe, while being engulfed in the now as it is.

For now, walking in between is driving me crazy.

Mind Expansion.

I had a chipotle lunch with JTroung today. The stories were incredible. I love that girl to death. We talked about anything and everything and I came to a few realizations.

Life is fucking crazy. In a way very few people understand or relate to.

You should never let go of your stories. They don't define you, but they do build who you are.

And that it is selfish of me to expect anyone to change for me.

Lastly, I should make this blog (which I obviously did) to keep everything I do, think, create, and believe immortalized for longer than I ever will be.