#thinkingishard

It’s not that I couldn’t be a writer. It’s that I am not, and my aspirations be damned, if I don’t string words together on a page or on a screen, I’m not writing.

It’s funny. SO obvious, I’m aware. But let me tell you: I have had these moments of Understanding, on the most mundane of things, several times now. It’s hilarious. I agree. I will be reading about how writers write and realize that, since I’m a reader, and am not writing, that is completely pointless. If I started writing, and stopped reading, it would remain pointless, because I’d learn how to write while writing. It’s not that that knowledge was somehow hidden. In fact, I have read this nugget of obviousness probably more than 100 times. It just never hit right. I have a storage container instead of a brain. And then one day, it boots up, picks up whatever information has been rolling around right on the top and consumes it. Bam, here you go, now you Understand.

If I tried to tell you the distinction between knowing and Understanding, I’m sure I would stumble over my own words. Let’s try it like this: you like a song, listen to it many times over, you enjoy it, but can’t quite make out, let’s say, 3 separate lines of the lyrics. And then one day, you happen to somehow learn what those lyrics are. Sometimes, you stop liking the song. Sometimes, you start enjoying it more.

That’s not Understanding.

If you like the song the exact same amount, but now have a moment of glee every time you hear a certain line because it is just So Good (or a pun. Or a reference. Anything, really.), that moment of glee is the Understanding. It shines a little but ultimately, changes nothing. It has been there all along.

it really is a game for me to know as much as i can about everything. i simply like it. i’m interested in lots of fields, and am genuinely curious. anyway, for as long as i can remember, i always asked myself ‘why is there “something” rather than “nothing”’? mostly, because it requires no background knowledge really to be able to participate to the conversation. although science is really interesting, i don’t really know what i’m talking about. 

for this question, i feel like the words, the concepts have to be defined here, in order to understand what it implies. words are words and the existence of any of them have no cause really. i mean, does the word “hello” have any reason to be what it is? it could’ve been “hilo” or any word you could possibly imagine or make up, no? language was invented to facilitate interactions, and so on and so forth, but we could’ve probably been speaking completely different languages by now. 

where i really want to get is we know, in our language, the definition and the multi-purposes of the word “something”. on the other hand, i feel like the word “nothing” has no real impact. as someone said, “it may be that there's no such thing as "nothing," and that it is simply an abstraction of the human mind.” 

Could the answer to why is there “something” rather than “nothing” be because there is no such thing as “nothing”? because there is always some thing even when there doesn’t seem to be. When my friend asks me what’s in the cup and i answer nothing, it omits the existence of all that it really contains. 

if there is always some thing, then what was the “something” before all of this “something”? 

in the end, i really haven’t pushed the human knowledge on this topic - nor was it my intention, but the purpose was simply to put my two cents in an ageless discussion.