a special whatever

In these posts I often poke fun at special stuff like science, nature, humans, etc., basically anything that isn’t nailed down, which is, well, everything (excessive use of commas often expressed for extra dramatic effect, thanks William Shatner). What I’ve generally found fascinating about our learning and exploration process is that we have reached the idea that there is some where, some time, some who, that is somehow, paramount. Leaders, gods, nature, religion, science, some final frontier, the answer to all questions. We continually overlook that the questioner is vapid (read: empty) and the answers are the structure. If you want to be someone, you absolutely must associate with a history of various preferences and typical reaction (that Bob, he’s such a typical republican), yet nothing about existence expressly forces that pick-a-lane structure. It’s simply all-inclusive and void of an imperative definition. Any ineffable definition, not only of a person, but of all things is awash of paradox, there simply isn’t a good place to store such things as; if this, then that.

Any attempt to force the narrative is, quite ubiquitously, suffering. Being a stakeholder in the human experience (or any other imagined experience), doesn’t grant anyone a free pass from this. You might assume that I, simply by writing this, is some special case (or that I think I am some authority), yet it’s the shear absence of that thinking that sight is clearer, nothing more.