The wheel is the world of all of the emotions and opinions and thoughts and everything anyone has ever experienced ever. But you can only be truly alive if you are on a color. So no matter what, there will always be that one tiny middle space of pure white where you can't stand, can't touch, can't reach.
Can't live, really.
So it's not really extremist, all things considered. I just don't live in the white space. Just try and imagine how lonely that would feel, being completely unbiased about everything and anything. I know I couldn't do it.
So by that theory, if we apply it to the world, love, and hate (three extremely big concepts I like to dabble in for kicks), does this mean the world loves me? Or hates me?
It's all very puzzling.
Well, on one hand, I could be extremely pessimistic and say that because I have not had a proper confession from the world saying they love me it means that the world must hate me, which pretty much makes me scum that should die within the next few seconds.
But on the other hand, we can assume the world is shy and not straightforward in sending messages (as per usual) and say that because the world hasn't told me it hates me, that it must love me in some way shape or form on some level or the other.
So, by that logic, the world loves me unconditionally, at least a little bit. But the one thing I can say for sure is that the world is not indifferent.
Nothing is truly indifferent or unbiased.
I mean, I can ignore someone for days on end and not show any signs of change. But isn't that a sort of hate? To give someone the cold shoulder is like denying their existence. Why would you go thru the effort if you were truly indifferent?
But if you were indifferent, then why would you talk to them in the first place.
Words like these are so flexible and undefined that they almost feel like jello in your mouth. All wiggly and jiggly and wobbly as ever, but it stays where it is. That would explain why jello is so hard to draw. Try it. It's such a pain.
SO. If this is my theory, my theory needs a name (you know. just so like, in case it gets real popular and someone decides to be dumb and form a cult after it.) But I wont be super narcissistic and name it after me. That's just rude. It's like saying OH I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER HAD THIS IDEA ON THEIR OWN. There were probably loads of people who came before me. I just happened to write it down.
I will name it the Indifferent, Unbiased, Clean Slate Theory. It doesnt't even halfway make sense. But that's okay, it suits me fine.
And between making sense and not making sense, the latter seems more interesting.
I should make a theory for that to. The constant need to make a more interesting choice rather than the most logical. Anyways, I will end this now. G'nigh--
[dial tone]
That was a very thought-provoking post. We can try to be unbiased and indifferent, but in the end, there is never truly indifference. There's only the belief of indifference. Sometimes, you try to seem indifferent, but you're really not. It's just a mask, a brave face to hide what's really inside. What's inside is something much deeper and darker that you don't want to expose. The white spot is where we hide, but the closest we'll ever get to the white is the pale area near it. In reality, most of the time, we are in that dark area around the edge, but we try to tone it down into the middle area. The most interesting and most logical ideas hardly ever go hand-in-hand. It's up to us to figure out which one is right for us.
ReplyDeleteThose last two sentence are probably the most universally understandable lines ever said. (Well, there are a few I can say that top them, but those two are up there for sure.) That's genius Rachel. O_O
Delete