Unframed

A while back, a friend sent me a link to a site named Petrihouse.com, which claimed to launch an ‘incubator for writers’, with a pitch sounding something like ‘Always wanted to be a writer, but never had the time to actually put your thoughts to paper ? Come to Petrihouse, a writing camp where you’ll be surrounded by friendly, interesting people and aspiring writers like you ! Wake up in the morning, write til your brain is fried off, we take care of the rest to help you become the writer you’ve always known you could be !’

The website had a ‘Think this is for you ? Tell us something about yourself and we’ll be in touch !’ area to type something in, and claimed to launch the writing camps in summer 2014. 

I found the concept so cheap, unproductive and symptomatic of a society where phony people try to extract money from people too shit to get things done by themselves, that I sent them a little essay, for kicks. Here it is :

(Aaaaaah, the countryside...)

The laws of this world do not apply to me. It might make me selfish and individualistic, but I genuinely do not feel compelled to abide by rules I do not agree to. I refuse to simply accept a rule that I have not screened beforehand for its intrinsic value to me, and personally deemed worthy of my respect. It does not mean that I do not understand why these rules are in place, most are justifiable. It means that I resent them for existing, making me second-guess choices that I should feel powerfully righteous about, but that I have to sacrifice on the grounds of common nonsense.

I want to drive a bike with no helmet because it feels good to do so. I want to run a red light when it’s obvious no one’s around without fearing to be struck at the wallet by some high-tech, fucking built-in traffic light camera, for the little dispensable income I scraped through my corporate enslavement.  

I want to be free to speed on a desert road, fuck up and smash my brains on the pavement, my head like an exploding watermelon dropped from a ten-story building, splash-smearing bits everywhere around upon impact, because I took that responsibility and things did not align quite right that one time and now I’m gone and that is my end. Ultimately, I deem that a fair price to pay for being a shithead, my own shithead, and a choice I have a right to.

Should my actions result in me being paralyzed and in debilitating pain, I want to be able to ask anyone who agrees to do it to put a bullet through my head so I can be done with it, like a sick horse in a slaughterhouse who’s lived its life and, by the quirks of randomness, is no longer in a state to enjoy it. I want my dead body to be dropped at sea, casually converted to fish-food, my memory now gone like that of thousands damned African souls who drown every year crossing the Mediterranean sea, fleeing from their misery, only to meet terrifying, hopeless deaths, humans soon forgotten by all. 

I do not think I am out-of-line for resenting these rules because I was educated by people who taught me the most critical skill of all, critical sense. I accept the underlying consequences that go hand-in-hand with the potentially unfortunate unraveling of my desires. I realize that, should things turn sour, the price should be mine to pay only, and I believe it should be so for everyone. But it is precisely because everyone is not ready for, or even understands the necessity of this ultimate rule that, collectively, we cannot live with the freedom of mind that comes with responsible individualism. The awareness of one's own limitations with respect to leading a life as one intends to. That is because, if allowed that freedom, people want the irresponsible fun without the irresponsible costs, expecting society to take them up when they go down. 

This is why helmets are mandatory. This is why licenses exist for everything and red lights are required. Because people are too stupidly selfish to correctly assess when not to mess around, too infantilized to realize that it is only acceptable to take chances when you are the only one endangered from it, and too cowardly to pay for the consequences of their actions, expecting compassion and pity when their lack of foresight catches up with them.

(trains come and go, you can always catch the next one…)

Most people willingly dumb themselves down to be happy. They’d rather bridle their potential for immediate, intellect-numbing happiness, than fight through being momentarily uncomfortable and reach genuine realization through hard work and willpower. It is a disheartening thing to witness. That tendency we have to seek happiness is as ridiculously counter-productive as it is emphasized as the ultimate goal to reach as a human being. But working for it ? Not so much. Instant, material gratification is all the rage. Be happy ! Why are you not happy ? Don’t matter, buy some shit and you’ll be. 

Hey there, friend ! For the purpose of this piece, we’ll say that you are between 18 and 30, live in a western (or westernized) society, and have enough time, means and peace-of-mind to be chilling on a fucking blog. Congrats ! Thanks to these stellar accomplishments, you’ve had first-hand experience as to how our society works, its rules and their shortcomings ; and you might be tempted to think that they might not always be right. Some things are not working that well, and you cannot believe how simple it would be to improve them ! Well, don’t think too much, dear friend : things won’t be changing anytime soon, and here’s why…

We’ve been framed

Relax, not framed like a ‘rogue cops put dope in my pocket !’ type of thing… this is real life and we’re talking metaphorical frames : the references based on which the rules – spoken or integrated – of our society are built. They are made of a blend of social, political, religious, philosophical and scientific parameters used to define a common perception of the world for those they apply to. They are the accepted building blocks of society, the references upon which all the rest relies. Now, we’re mostly talking about modern, western frames in this article (keep that in mind) ; however every now and then it will be interesting to draw a comparison with other societies, just to illustrate a point.

Cool, frames. So what ?

Well, turns out these frames have a bit of an unsuspected power on us. As soon as we are old enough to integrate them, we instinctively evolve ‘in’ them. They become ultimate references to everything we know, which makes it hard to question them, or to even look at them with fresh eyes. We soon cannot comprehend how one could function out of them. How could someone not get that this is the way things are, because…well because this is the way things are, dickface ! Surely there is no other right way to live which does not involve democracy, marriage, and three monotheist religions ! But why would we think that ? Because that is what we grew up with as the norm, and it is virtually impossible to understand and appropriate yourself a vision of the world that does not rely on the elements you grew up with defining all the rest - not without a conscious effort to do so anyway…

And why is that a problem ?

Good question. It would not be a problem if all the people in the world were incredibly level-headed and had a capacity to empathize with others and, overall, not be dicks. But let’s be honest, you’re a reasonable person, we’re all friends here… is that the case ? We just fucking love our frames, with a deep-rooted passion that quite frankly can’t be explained. For the average human mammal, the thought of other mammals having a different take on how to live their lives is unacceptable. Not on an intellectual level, either, but on an instinctive one : we do not stop and take the time to consider that one might approach things differently before dismissing the thought. That would be close-minded but rationally acceptable, making you a rational dick. Now, you might be familiar with dicks, you might even have one yourself (yay !), are they ever rational…? Right. No, instead, we get a gut-feeling, a primal perception that the other person is wrong, because they do not comply with our rightful ways. Accepting other frames as potentially valid would be questioning the very principles that define our lives. This kind of self-assessment takes courage and a will to fight through uncertainty, so we’d rather dismiss it not to contradict our feelings. See, frames are something we feel, and in their case our animal instinct is stronger than our human rationality. In a world where peace requires a bridging of cultures, is that helping with the whole “let’s understand each other, make the best of our differences and live together on this planet we happen to find ourselves on”… ? Right.

Whatever, stop rambling and give me an example.

Alright. Think about some elements of society as we know it. Has it ever come to your mind to discuss the superiority of the system of democracy ? Or that the very concept of religion exists ? Or do you just take these for granted ? We were born in a democracy, and sure, we acknowledge some of its shortcomings. But we as surely accept it by default as the best system. As far as religion goes, we were born with the concept surrounding us. So much so, that while some believe in the mystical aspect of it and others do not, we all acknowledge the normality of its existence. Three monotheist religions ? Yeps, sounds fair. But it gets interesting when you notice that people born with that reference will find other forms of spirituality (multiple deities, animism, voodoo…) to be idiotic, primitive ones, to which it is utterly incomprehensible that anyone, anywhere, could somehow believe in. At best they will approach it in condescending fashion (‘ooh, look at these sweet savages who believe in trees ! Adorable’). However, chances are they will respect the book religions as a rational possibility, something to be respected. See where this is going ? The limit is arbitrary : we are talking of beliefs which have neither tangible ground, nor proof of existence. The rationale behind making some of them acceptable while dismissing others as ludicrous is entirely subjective. The only elements allowing to make the judgment separating ‘legitimate’ from ‘dumb as rock’ are references inherited from our surroundings.

That vaguely make sense, if it was not for the fact that we are right and they are wrong ! come on man, trees with souls…

Well…sure, I agree. It’s hard to take a step back and look at things with eyes freed from the frames we love so much. Problem is, everyone’s doing the same and that’s not leading us anywhere. We’re like horses with blinders, we see what is in front of us while our integrated references are in the driver’s seat, clutching the reins to our thinking. We do not think of going sideways, around, or even backwards to rethink the foundations - we evolve in the one direction we already know, trying to build upon it, trying to expand it, but seldom questioning it. We do so with such passion that it makes us unable to grasp the idea that other blinder-ridden horses might be going in an opposite direction, steered by a completely different set of references. While rational thinking should chime in to point out that hey, no need to be assholes here, to each their own and God for everyone, we sure have found a funnier way to deal with it : we either mock the other as retarded, or head towards collision.

But it’s not like this shit is set in stone, we can change !

Of course… You do it. Have fun being alone, sucker ! See, our frames are dicks like that… they’re not just content with dividing us, they also make it extremely difficult to question them without being ostracized from the society they define. Pretty self-serving when you consider our neediness as little social animals, who just want so bad to be part of the cool kids. We sure don’t want to be eating alone at the canteen because we didn’t play the game, regardless of what we think of it. To be part of the social group, you need to suck it up, shut your mouth, or expose yourself to being wedgie’d by the rest of society. You can still open it and risk being pushed away… or puss’ out just enough, insidiously dilute your original thought (so that it still complies to your frames to an acceptable extent) and end up demanding asking nicely for marginal change. And that way you’ll still feel good about yourself, because what’s important is that you get your win, right ? You’ll bridle the novelty and depth of your thoughts in fear of being rejected. And you’ll do so on your own behalf, because you’d much rather be one of the cool kids in a system you disagree with than being alone in something you believe in. You bad ass ! As such, the frames are automatically prevented from changing by the very people they apply to. They take life through the unconscious action of the majority, and are protected from disruptions by the inherent desire of human beings to belong. They are insidious and self-policing, and unless the majority agrees they need to change, they’ll stay put forever.

But precisely ! That’s why we vote for politicians and get inspired by idealists ! Them Mandelas, Ghandis and shit ! That’s how the system works, we elect people to make the change for us.

Good one. Human nature, anybody...? Eh. This might work on paper, in your fantasy-land of incorruptible idealists. This is real life though. Radical changes do not happen, frames don't let themselves be fucked with by some nerds and their principles. A people’s revolution will hit itself against the actual, physical defenses of society. Check out the protests in Turkey a few months back, where civilians got their asses beat for weeks on end by the army. What ended up changing ? Nothing. Oh right, they ended up saving their park or whatever. Hurray ! Seriously though, when was the last time demonstrations led to real, lasting changes in a modern country ? You look, I’ll wait.

So what does that leave us with, then ?

That leaves us with a change coming from the inside. The work of a bad-ass clever man who got it aaaall figured OUT (to read in a movie trailer voice). Ooooh yeah. That’s possible, it’s just a matter of getting the right people in charge, people with a vision, idealists, who will somehow sneak around unnoticed in the spheres of power to eventually find themselves in a position to make a change ! Easy shit ! Well, no. You don’t get to a position of power like that. It take years of compromising, alliances, strategizing, promises and deceptions, and other being the cool-kid-nesses to even start thinking of getting there. True idealists are few and far between, and idealists willing to compromise and play by these rules long enough to make it big are even fewer. Still, it’s possible. But then what ? Well, being the cool kid is kind of cool, actually. Once in the position to make a change, these idealists will also be in a position to benefit from things not changing. The shit is locked down ! Throw in some lobbies, a tad of corruption, the longing for power ; drench that stew on human nature and you’ve turned around the meanest of idealist motherfuckers. Be honest : if it was you, what would you do once big money and power came into play ? Which of the allure of personal benefit or desire for systemic change would prevail ? Personal benefit would trump your principles the moment you’d realize that fuck thaaaat, YOLO, and you want to live it large. ‘Someone else can do it, I’m getting my money, nahmsayin’?’ is what you’ll be saying. Idealists still willing to fight for their vision when they can personally benefit from things not changing are the rarest of species, and they don’t last.

Soooo… fuck do we do now ?

(Ambitious title, simple idea. Random picture.)

When I started putting words on my ideas about the universe, religion and human nature, my goal was to be as free from the influence of existing theories as possible. That way, I would be able to make my mind work in search of my own concepts without being corrupted by existing ideas. With that rule consciously established, I started putting forth my own truths and interpretations to my immediate fellow human beings – friends and colleagues - so that I could benefit from their interpretations and study their reactions to my ideas.

To my surprise, I was met with the argument that my ideas could not hold value unless they were based and defended by existing documentation. In the eyes of those I talked to, I would have to proactively refer to previous theories, devised by other human beings, to be considered worthy of being heard.

It struck me as a strange reflex. I was expecting counter-arguments on the core of my concepts, not on their lack of scholarly support. I was expecting criticism on the depth of my thoughts, their possible contradictions, but not on the form of their background. This reaction they had made me realize how deeply we cannot function without enclosing our thoughts in an existing frame. I choose to call this the interpretative bias of collective knowledge theory. Let us look into what I mean by that.

As human beings trailing through time, we have undeniably benefited from building up on the strength of collective knowledge. This is what has made humanity advance : we are constantly adding to the discoveries of previous generations and increasing the depth of our knowledge. Every generation did not start from scratch, having to re-invent the wheel and everything that followed each time around. Across centuries we have discovered a lot (probably forgotten a lot as well), and it has allowed us to constantly develop the overall knowledge of humankind.

This concept can be wholeheartedly agreed to when it comes to tangible domains, things that can be verified, proven, that are palpable and undeniable: biology, technology, astronomy, and many others. Even when these domains require a human-made frame –such as mathematics- their practical uses make them absolutely rational.

But when it comes to the intangible, which by essence cannot be proven and never will be - such as religion – isn’t each individual better off thinking it through by themselves at first, freed from the influence of existing theories ? Only later challenging their ideas with others, in a mutually beneficial venture ? I believe so. I’m thinking, how challenging can the debate get if the different parties are enclosed in the same structure of thinking to begin with, basing themselves off of existing works, merely adding developments and analysis to them that will, by essence, be limited ?

This behavior is what I define as the bias of collective knowledge. We have formatted ourselves to accept that we can only build up on what others have already achieved. Anything we undertake must be based on existing accomplishments and referenced as such to be considered meaningful. And I disagree : by essence, some of the fundamental topics shaping one’s understanding of the world cannot be checked, proven right or wrong, by any means, neither now nor ever. They pertain to realms that cannot be verified. As such, exclusively basing a thought process on what other humans have deemed is the right way to do is painfully limiting to the fulfillment of one’s potential. We search for guidelines in what is ‘known’ before even zeroing in on what we wish to think about.

(Each of these are galaxies containing billions of planets. This picture covers a tiny spot of the observable Universe.)

Now that you have given some thought to how we might be challenged in perceiving time, think again about the theory of evolution. While many people accept it as the de facto truth, isn’t it still a difficult concept to integrate ? And that even for a convinced believer in science ? A process which took millions of years to unravel is hard to grasp : a cell took a million years to develop into two cells, a few million years later fish grew paws, got on the (now existing) land and somehow evolved to monkeys ; throw in a common ancestor somewhere in there and bam ! here we are. Strutting about, thinking of doing… the groceries.

Even with a lot of goodwill and scientific rationality, it remains hard to get a feel for the unrolling of these events. Their timeline is so immense, our delusions of grandeur have ample space to slither in and deny them. This is where our feelings are influenced by our inability to handle that timeline, making us believe in something, somehow above our understanding, explaining our existence. Our lifetime, a seemingly consequent amount of time to us, really means nothing on the scale of the universe. Now think about it : if we cannot feel the meaning of a billion years, how easy does it become to feel another explanation for it ?

There is none. There are just things we cannot grasp and should accept as ungraspable. Instead of graciously taking this free humility lesson courtesy of the Universe, we are inventing explanations that cannot be verified to fill the void. It is not in our nature to accept something making us out to be meaningless and trivial. The simple, straightforward mix of probabilities and billions of years passing by does not quite have the appeal to our ego than that of a superior being behind it all.

Inventing ourselves a meaning will be necessary until we have learnt to accept our shortcomings in understanding certain concepts, and appease their impact on how we feel. I have mostly used the concept of Time as one we have trouble with. But what about ‘nothingness’ ? Try Imagining being dead for a second ? And how about ‘no Universe’ ? That is impossible, because of the ‘non-existing’, ‘non-thinking’ part of the task, which our physiology is not designed to handle. How inconvenient ! How easy would it be to scrap together a life-after-death paradigm (hello, paradise !) as a more satisfying, feel-able explanation ? Physiological limitations prevent us from envisaging ourselves as flukes, alone and purposeless in the universe.

If one believes in the science behind genetics, they should believe in the science explaining the human trail on earth and the appearance of the universe. They should believe in the overwhelming probability that other forms of life exist in this universe, since as far as we know it is infinite (yet expanding ! Try figuring this one out).

(Spoiler : it is messed up and responsible for many of our absurd ideas.)

The staple of religion is that we somehow were chosen to have a unique relationship with a higher power. From this ‘god-driven purpose’ we infer that everything we do not understand comes from the will of this unquestionable, almighty power.

This take on our existence is incompatible with the idea that we simply evolved from ‘lesser’ forms of life. We think impossible for the beautifully complex and thinking machinery we are to possiby be the trivial consequence of a slow, incremental, and totally unplanned process. No, we must have been designed as the finished product. We are pretty much flawless as it is, after all. Our teeth fall off of our mouths for lack of space on our jaws ? Whatever, that not deter us from thinking we cannot possiby evolve from our current state.

(Sounds about accurate.)

The root of human wretchedness has been to create a norm in which we are all that matters, in which there can only be us in the universe. Confronted with statistical facts that belief is ludicrous, yet it is fantastically difficult to detach oneself from it. It is responsible for our sense of entitlement. It is what gives people a wrong sense of certainty, when our only certainty should be that we should have none, and that it is ok to have none.

(There’s my God.)

I use the term “randomness” to coin the completely unplanned nature of anything that exists or happens not resulting from the direct and conscious action of a living, thinking human being. It encloses everything from the existence of the universe to life and our presence on earth. It dismisses the idea of any form or shape of a greater power exerting any kind of conscious will in any matter of existence ; it discredits any notion of karma or relationship of cause to effect of intangibles in favour of a principle of pure, unadultered randomness. It boils down anything that has ever happened in the past and will in the future to the materialization of probabilities, when it is not the consequence of a human being’s conscious action.

This “randomness” is a conceptual tool. It is aimed at underlining the fact that we, as human beings, have not embraced the inexistence of an explanation for “us”, as well as the lack of meaningful need for such an explanation. Our existence and that of things around are the consequence of probabilities materializing, and as much as we would like to believe otherwise, they have no spiritual explanation. The universe exists, it is ruled by forces, some of which we know, many others we do not. The Earth as we know it is the consequence of billions of years passing by in that universe, and so is life as we call it.

From this “randomness” trickles down that we are nothing but a product amongst billions of others ; none of which were planned by any kind of magical entity. Earth, nature, and everything we know are all devoid of any spiritual purpose.

(This blog is composed of posts extracted from an essay I wrote over a period of a few months. The first two posts’ purpose is to give an introduction of the topics I will be developing, as well as to put forth a quick explanation of how I chose to approach them. Following that, all other posts are pretty standalone. Enjoy !)  

I believe human beings are only as good as their capacity to think through complex issues can take them. There is great value in analyzing one’s own perceptions to reach a personal understanding of things around. Reflecting upon an issue from scratch to build an understanding that only our specific thought patterns can attain is infinitely more valuable than simply reading what our peers might have said about it before us. The path we are forced to find in order to build a concept, the conscious effort to make our brain compute something new, something ours, matters often most than the finished product.

Training our capacity to think is what makes us better ourselves. One should not stop from fear that their deep thoughts on a topic might only be the introduction of someone else’s work before them. The interpretations I come to might have been written centuries before ; the conclusions I reach might be ancient already. But arriving to these conclusions on my own will have been an infinitely more valuable exercise than discovering them in the work of others, before having had a chance to give them a personal analysis. There is value behind the brainwork achieved to form original ideas, even if they are seemingly only original to us.

I believe that through the work of biology, each person’s thought patterns are unique in the way they establish connections, compute ideas and interpret feelings. Based on this premise, one’s worth as a human being is on par with anyone else’s. Based on this premise, the ideas, theories and perceptions one develops are as worthy to make sense and hold value as that of any person ever recognized as genius.

The thinking rationale behind this essay is to make a personal, proactive step in accepting that I know very little about anything, that I am just as clueless to the eternal questions as others were before me, and to see how I can improve myself by deeply analyzing my own perceptions and developing my own theories. Not being a recognized philosopher or scientist should not preclude one from the desire (and duty) to reflect upon anything that has ever been conceptualized.

How far I can push my logic before it gets caught up in my own personal limitations - which I call ‘frames’ ? I aim to use the thinking ability I was given through the ‘randomness’ of the universe - which will be explained in the following post - to challenge my perceptions of humanity, society, religion, how I think they are embedded with one another, and why and how they perpetuate. I will develop empirical perceptions I have had on the impact of our physiology on our thoughts and feelings ; and what I think are some of its most powerful triggers. I will also share some considerations on faith, our wretchedness, and what I think makes us human.  

Was I now to read the works of others on these topics, my understanding and criticism would not only be on the core of their ideas, but also on the path of thinking they might have taken to get there. By choosing to think it through in my own terms first, I am able to compare this path to mine and increase my understanding of human thinking patterns, which will then possibly make me bring new, enlightened twists to my own concepts.

Anyone will most likely have strong opinions on the topics hereafter developed, since they are so inherent to a person’s own references and beliefs, stemming from their upbringing and surrounding influences.

When it comes to the intangible, it is important to not automatically integrate concepts that were fed to us by external influences. What is important is to make the conscious effort to personally think them through.