The Cookout

Mind-play as a discipline and as a neuro-psychotism​

In ways, ANY discipline is a neurotic expression. When does that "expression" wander into the domains of an ego having deluded itself to the point of heading to be totally out of touch with the explicit reality we exist in?


I find myself measuring my own psyche on this measure with my low-esteem for the social and cultural platitudes cohered and adhered to by the folks, in general. Keeping it granularly transactional for each encounter that DOES have their monolithic homogenized character, but there's enough of the idiosyncratic with a few for me to have an intriguable expectation of receptiveness for something other than a canned regurgitation of a conformist coherence to a general meme programmed circumscribing behavioral expectation.

Too bad that most of the intriguing ones tend towards the darker sociopathic aggrandizements. Those are usually the prime examples of those whose narcissistic tendencies are showing the blossoming of their actions being unimpeachable by the dead-brained common masses. Tho' I have some affinity for the theory of the dead-brained 'common consensus', it does not give license to gratuitous and indifferent cruelty towards others dignity and integrity.

It's in this distinction between the contrarian and the social nihilist that I must be trying to address. We can get our interpretations of our perception of others projected self-image of their intent wrong from our own ignorance of the fuller context of the other person. There ARE those circumstances where an extensive exposing data set of the other person is known that one's own miscalculation would be so low that only a circumstantial anomaly of an 'inside straight' unknown factor would be the determinant of your own mea culpa of estimation and judgement.

This principle/theorem can be extrapolated to our estimation-judgements on social and cultural themes. BUT, we face the conundrum of what degree of a data base should we seek before concluding an estimable level of confidence to acceptable acknowledgement of possible error?

We can only game-out on a certain quantity of observed advisory tales lacking our own first hand participation, before facing the question about the absence of our own active investment in and with the scenario before being sure that our judgement isn't biasly prejudicial of the subject(s) in question.

From my advantage of chronological longevity, I can dare with confidence on my smugness of many common phenomena. At the same time that very longevity has placed me at a in temporal affinity with some forms that due have their contemporaneous, sui generis uniqueness that 'I'd have to be in that person's or group's shoes' to have the credible bona fides for going to the point of dismissiveness and condemnation, beyond the stoic 'not my cup of tea' equinaminous laissez-faire tolerance.

In summary, there IS an ambiguous margin where, short of an imperative necessity to know for our own welfare, we must demure from the tendency toward inviolable immutable "truths" to the empiricism of transactional experience to know the quality of essence of the subject/subject (intangible) matter we find ourselves in an obligatory position of having to interact.

Graffitti_vandal> 2022-08-02 21:48 PDT I could add that to have that acceptable extent of contextual familiarity with the tangible subjects or intangible subject one could run the risk of contamination bias from too emotionally involved with the subject(s).