Against the assumption of certainty

Against the Assumption of Certainty
I object to the assumption of certainty, this is the main purpose of my ideology. My method is denial, which I intuitively apply to most of the conversations I engage in. This year, I must make a start with my writing career in English by finishing ‘Theombrotus’ and ‘The Rising of the Dough.’ These are in maturity early works, but they define an early impression where to my work is developing. My intellectual engagement is to diversity and chaos, and social commitment, in which the presence of order and homogeneity is not a contradiction, but an affirmation. After all, chaos without order cannot be chaos.

The objective of my life can only be recognition of my existence, by life or posthumous, against all odds. This recognition, in order to be lasting, has to be of my intellectual work. I am not a politician, for the name of the politician is by the grace of the event, which is bound by time. Any recognition of politics is historical and not of individual merit. The same is true of economists in even greater measure, and on the same enlarging scale the media artists stand, but they have no merit of their own at all, they are merely symbols of occasion.
The upcoming eight months I will have to do some soul searching to find out how deep the commitment to chaos runs, for absolute it cannot be. Literature and art are without a doubt central is this commitment. I have to explore if it turns against society and to what level I must seek involvement in society.

The Corruption of Homogeneity
There has been a lot said by people, revolutionaries, example figures, reactionary conservatives, artists, common men, workers and intellectuals, and among all they said there was many said in order to make the world a better place for all. People, that is individuals believe they have something to contribute, even more so, others believe it is of worth, if only to acknowledge what they themselves are in the process to formulate as their a priori contribution to the world in the bud. All that is not according to their own interpretation of the world is damaging, all that is in line is of value. This simple principle of homogeneity is the main critical measure of most people’s intellectual judgment. So, it is judged by alternatives that the world is bad and they call themselves revolutionary because their interpretation knows little reflection in the masses. The media stars and leaders of politics and economy believe the world is just, since they after all form the main symbols of it, and it cannot be bad if it is so congruous with their own perception, and they are the establishment. The establishment is an interesting word, since both classes use the term in depicting good and evil. These two classes clash and struggle for dominance.
The same simple principle is applicable to most areas of global society. People tend to enjoy converge to homogeneity, in radical situations this results in a denial and isolation from the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *