Hallucinations

Once again, the polaric vision that I have disclosed earlier (Very much so, around a year back.) Seems particularly true (When responding to myself, a larger sample space was unavailable to me.) when the matter of human social interactions are concerned. The idea of cognitive mental capabilities state that people classes quantitatives (e.g humans, objects or speech) into sub-groups that can be identified by the person in question. With humans it is criterions such as skin color, language and/or/notwithstanding to actions. However, I have found articulation in particular especially engaging. Though I personally rarely engage in idle chatter, I have found that even idle chatter is classified into sub-groups, perhaps unconsciously. Glimpses of these characterizations are noticeable if attention is concentrated (via introspection, although not perfect, is the only method available to me.) when speaking or listening.

This means that I'm adding to my earlier thinking of working with polaric versions of reality. Instead of polaric extremes, it is safe to assume that reality belongs in sub-groups according to enviromental or psychological factors. With enviromental factors being culture, social standards or generally accepted biases and psychological being an egocentric methology of grouping according to personal understanding (either shaped or unshaped by the enviroment.). What this changes, is the whole idea of exptreme polarity in thinking, yet maintaining a central and needed section of it: The inexistance of a grey area. With this newfound generality, there might be a reason for me to remember exactly the words and tones used in important conversations for intro or retropection in order to find something intricate in human nature of thinking.

The process of thought is not as simple as anyone thinks it is, no one even knows if thinking and learning is explainable in biological or behaviouristic means. All we can do is to hold on to our existing beliefs and hope for more empirical evidence which doesn't explain a whole lot. Not that much of the general public care for evidence, we are a gullible lot that put beliefs without evidence (also known as "faith") in front of those with evidence and exclaims their overwhelming righteousness (of their own experiences) without checking their integrity as a whole. Yet we remain ignorant of this most basic of facts.

Mayhaps it is better to be ignorant, to be unwary of ignorance, to be woefully binded with earthly worries. What are we but organisms which only ultimate goal is to survive and triumph in our own social class. How does the scientists that do not realize their impact in the future continue to do research that benefits no one of that period? No one knows, I do not want to know either. Perhaps fueled by anger, fear of losing or self-realization. Maybe it's just the need to know, the curiousity that killed many proverbial cats. For me, it's all the above.