Aren't We Smart, Or Aren't We Smart?

There is no such thing as a standard man, only a conditioned one. If you change the conditions of any single man, that individual would no longer be the same man. People do not change, experience changes. It is simple. Perception is what decides the narrative. The narrative that shapes an individual's conditions. And words, what decides perception. It is a man's word that reigns his condition and by extension standard.

If there is no standard what is the average of man? The similarity of the human condition is no similarity. It is the distinctness of the average conditions that defines the average. Not the lack of, it is the absence of distinction that sets individuals apart from the masses. Being more similar to a particular variant of the human experience is that sameness. Is that not what extreme conditions of the mind are, that of association and parameters in experience. You see distinction because you associate that with being different from an arbitrary standard. But if there is no standard then there must be no distinction aside from conditions.

If man has no standard then why does conformity exist? Why does man have memories of connection? Why does humanity have shared understanding? First of all memories are not based upon facts, they are based upon experiences. The connection and understanding that you speak of is elusive to reality. Human connection is not connection, it is based upon experiences. And therefore identity and empathy are descriptions for conditions. What you speak of is understanding between mental conditions not a standard. You can only predict another's current conditions based upon how their own conditions would be. This is what empathy is, empathy is understanding of conditions not of people. The conformity you were referring to, is one where individuals perceive and act upon a standard. Conformity is merely a lack of empathy towards what makes people unique.

That can not be, humans can understand one another, if there is no empathy then what is love? What you refer to as love is not that which you believe to be love. Love is not a single notion, it is a collection of experiences, and relationships with those experiences. To love another can mean to understand their conditions. That is a form of love. However it does not end there. Love is best understood as a web of interconnections. You can love another for understanding their conditions, and they also understand your conditions. This is also love. You can love another because you project your conditions or understanding of conditions onto another. This is narcissistic love. You can love another just for the fact of them having conditions. This is motherly love. You can love without having to understand another's conditions. That is unconditional love. The list goes on. Love is empathy in various contexts, and thus transcends the meaning of empathy. Empathy is an asset, however unlike love it can not replace having to understand what makes an individual. Empathy is not synonymous with love. The moment you confuse the two, the moment you try to fabricate love on to others. Love in conclusion would not even allow notions of conformity to transpire in its unconditional sense. Love is what allows humanity to see the uniqueness of one another. Why? Because a world without love is a world with only empathy, and a world with only relation is a world where you are blind to distinction.

I don't believe you. One can not just alter words to fit their own meaning. Words have definitions and are meant to capture the essence of how we interact with the world. How can you say that empathy is mere understanding of circumstances? Who is to say that you are not misunderstanding empathy, as you propose that humanity is misunderstanding love? To this I say men kill each other, they fight wars, do heinous acts, commit sin, and lie to one another. If love is truly not being conflated with other entities then why do we become so acquainted with hate. Hate and love in this sense are on the same spectrum. What does it mean to hate another? An intense or passionate dislike is it not? What is love then? Love is an intense affection. That word affection to clarify just means a liking or fondness. If you do not see a connection then you will never see you. In both love and hate the emphasis is on a relation yet also an intensity. This is where empathy fails. Empathy gives you a basis for understanding and relationships. However it does not provide fulfillment in itself. Love is what does that instead through intensity. That is why you can empathize with a mass murderer but not love this individual. Why? Because you would not dare share a sacred intensity with this individual. Hate is the absence of love. The more love is misunderstood and twisted this is that of hate. If love is a collection, hate is the misattributed elements of how humanity defines it. The only difference between love and hate is perception over the affection aspect. Once the perception of how men interact with affection, then the love follows. I do not redefine meanings, merely point out the decisiveness of how men perceived the meanings they themselves created. Words as I said in the beginning is that which reigns his condition and by extension standard. If you ever believe there is a single way to think about anything, then you have allowed your words to continue to a standard.

I see so, you present your own perspectives of how words shape men. However, how does one know to what extent? How can we be sure these abstractions even have groundings? How are these any different from that of opinion and philosophical rambling? To what extent does your own bias come into play? Just why would you believe that your perception is superior to humanity? To this I will not answer. I will merely say that words are common. If every word is that which we decide to be common, in order to have a basis for which communication is done, then what does this mean? Your words have meaning, yes? They have definitions, yes? You can use them in different contexts and ways, yes? I expect you to have said yes to these questions. This means words are of a common will. A common will that we mutually agree to in order to use language as a system. It is how we frame your language into comprehensive and refined methods. If it is my thoughts that have strayed me then let it be so. But I ask you how you can understand me if my thoughts have done me wrong. How can you envision what I say If I have given you false information? You have allowed your perception to understand the conditions of my words. You do not understand and I think you may try, but will also fail on such an endeavor. You can understand the words of others not because of definitions nor how we rationalize. But by how we think we rationalize about words. You give words a framework to be understood and then interpret accordingly. This is why you can understand words, because they are conditions and shorten experiences. They are what dictate you not because of your ability but your own usage of how they do not work. Myself does not come into play here, there are merely words and what we perceived to have been our words.

Do you see what I have done, I have made you see my world view. Whether you identify with me or not, if you can empathize with me or not, you see my point for what it really is. All I have done is talk about the nature of words, and the nature of words are what matters. I have not shown you anything new. I have not added anything new. I have spoken about the same reasonings and quality time and time again. I have used different words and contexts with rhetoric and questions to give you a narrative. I have thus manipulated you into thinking about the nature of words. And the way I have done it, through the nature of words. All I have done is used the same points and restated them framed differently. My logic nor reasonings are that of logic, they are that on the nature of words. Points that have no standard on their own but their framing gave them depth through the perceptions of the reader. By playing and pushing the boundaries of meaning, I presented different perceptions of things you know deep down inside already. This does not make my points false, in fact these illusions and propaganda of my agenda only highlights my points. I have spoken now of what I considered to be lies, I merely spoken a few self-dialogues that felt like such. This won't always be the case, where the intention of the writing is to inform and benefit the reader. So I say to you fellow learners and humans, do not be fooled by the command over words, neither through others nor the words of your own self.

[Author's note]

- You only get this note after having time to contemplate.

(For those of you who didn't understand, the text was messing with you. Its philosophical muses are not the actual arguments of it. But present themselves subtly to be projected upon. The only actual thing the text actually intends to convey is on the nature of words in regards to perception. It is a philosophical exercise that forces readers to immerse and engage in regards to both criticizing and reflecting upon it. The more you do so the more you will find endless rabbit holes for its potential seemingly profound implications, and overtly contractions, complexity, and ambiguity. And all in the same sense proves its point by the display and manipulation. Essentially the text is what you make of it even though it presents a truth. Therefore it contradicts the very foundation of it. It shows the paradoxes of language itself. If you found yourself questioning the text, interpreting potential meanings, unsure of what things mean but trying to understand anyways, or anything in between. Then the text has done its job, you have successfully been manipulated. As this was indeed the intention. Trying to make meaning without actually understanding the bases of where an argument actually stands and means is what the text is highlighting on the nature of words themselves. Even the later awareness of having been told you're manipulated, Is a part of the manipulation. Because now you are forced to have to confront any potential interpretations that you extracted from the text. But that in itself would require to follow another interpretation the text is highlighting. Criticism as well would require an interpretation of the text to begin with. This is also why any act of engagement with the text plays into it. Again putting the reader into the trap of doing what the text is seeking of you. To create meaning where there is no clear definition.)