Opinion Streams of Consciousness

[Elephantom]

# 0

I would like to start this by saying I am no great author, ever the circumspect man. I'm at my weakest in rhetoric, my best at nothing. I am a simple writer, a fledgling writer, with no great knowledge nor understanding of the academic subjects— I prefer to dwell in the earnest thoughts with which I write this discourse, compiled wholly from my own personal knowledge and nothing else. These I consider my greatest traits, for my understanding of this nothingness helps me to aspire for a peak of attainment.

Yet I am not here to discuss my dreary stories, and thusly should I, and you too, preserve the integrity of humility. I will list here my thoughts, though I shall warn you, they're of little note or remarkable quality; after all, I'm not philosopher nor am I a scholar. You, the reader, are welcome to comment or remark on my thoughts. I won't restrict that freedom, and a discussion or (friendly) argument is always a satisfactory notion.

And a warning in advance: mind you, reader, sometimes, transgressive topics might surface. I bid you to not take my words to heart, as they're not reflective of my own personal sentiments and ideology, but rather, they represent arguments I pose on my own and to myself in a wholly objective light. That is the intent, and I hope that is your intent too.

 

[Elephantom]

# 1

I proceed: I have written as much as the everyman who's aspired to write out his drab, boring story— that is, to say, quite much but with little substance to it. In the months that have passed, I've yet to get better than when I was younger, but it I've received an amount of wisdom on what I can and cannot do; wisdom is an important trait, which, in my opinion, enables one to explore the many auxiliary facets of thinking. More specifically, on how to think, rather than what to think.

Thinking on the basis of what others teach you, of course, is a necessary component of society, for we will always need the submissive to do what the greater commands; this submission, however, regardless of my own contempt and the obvious, is far more ineffective than having a measure of wisdom, for even a poor man of unsound education can be wise and therefore of reputable mind, for he knows how to think with what he has, but however you teach a man of innate servitude the advanced forms of education, he will still forever remain bound by his single-mindedness. That is, the former will ever provide useful men, pillars of society and capable of stable leadership, provided he has that air of charisma which most men of power have, while the latter is cursed by nature to remain the servants and followers of the former, or otherwise, be brought down by the inevitable call for action if they do rise to the top (a concept of problem we see in many historical societies).

When I say that, I do not include tyrants or people who take power purely through force or coercion. I will discuss the difference between a leader and a tyrant some other day.

Let us discuss those historical societies and beliefs, in brief: the practice of elevating kin to heir status is, of course, one of the most prime examples that can be seen almost everywhere from patriarchies to matriarchies and everything in between. The original man, the original bearer of this feudal concept, is awarded by design of his leader or by his own actions, for his actions and his ability to lead. He appoints men who've won his favour, through action or the ability to lead, and not personal relations (I'm taking the concept of a fledgling, new-born society, mind you). However, within the next two generations, they soon adopt the conduct followed by hereditary principles (a product of jealousy and avarice perhaps), assigning the heirs of their position (a necessary element, or else anarchy will rule) by choosing their eldest (often male) son. This is one of the reasons a democracy prevails where a monarchy does not, though even this concept has its problems, as a person can possess diplomacy and charisma, but not wisdom, and charm the greater people.

Still, the inability to lead is more prevalent in monarchies (the great fiasco that the Weltpolitik policy was). But there are problems in the idea of democracy too, or the right to choose as given to the greater public (subsequently leading to the second world war).

Both were disasters.

And to add another thing, as I loathe being callous with any matter: the pursuit of this wisdom has, in more than one occasion, crippled intelligence; they're of two sides, pure and practical reason, conjectural and empirical. They mix as finely as oil and water; wisdom can often give birth to a greater ego, while intelligence has little room for a satisfied, content mind. To the latter, the pursuit of knowledge in its rawness is immortal. To the former, the self-reflection and meditations are of the utmost importance, everything else blurred yet visible. But they're necessary, each to the other. The intelligence being the grass (pardon, I have no other example), the wisdom being the secatuers which shape this mess of grass.

Needless to say, with the right component, oil and water can safely exist beside each other and within.

 

[Elephantom]

# 2

1. People often interpret base ethics correctly, though they fail to understand the subtleties and intricacies of the subject— and that it can be difficult to understand without letting go of your own moral fibres. As Machiavelli went about his work, the machinations of politics is corrupt and dirty, and in that, he reflects upon the cruel society of the world. There is no going around that fact.

2. Ethics is primacy, and the innate need to satiate ourselves given, reason. As long as there is sentience, civilization, there will be a form of ethics, or as I would like to say, commonly accepted justice

3. Base ethics are defined by the dynamic relationship between Order and Anarchy, both constructs of sentience. If one extreme dominates the spectrum, the other will throw a backlash (order beckons anarchy, anarchy beckons order, simple mantra). In such cases, should society lean towards one extremity with ardent intent, the basis of Good and Evil will surely align with the element in danger of extinction.

4. So, what is base ethics? A projection of our interests and instincts, as defined by the habits of our ancestors, surely. Say, murder. Why do we shun murder? Excepting personal ties, is it solely for the loss of a life? For example, it can be conceivable by men with romantic notions that a revolution is more often than not powered by liberty, when it is but an extension of the greater people's hatred and the deliberate misdirection of this hatred, regardless of the morality of the ruler— who, of course, will have at least one flaw.

5. It is impossible to have a leader who's completely benevolent or cruel, let us say in the fashion of Anarchy and Order respectively, for this two traits, though absolutely different, attract each other due to one similar trait: that they're both used to achieve power. Coercion is Anarchy is Benevolence. Force is Order is Cruelty. And when a leader achieves either extremis, he attains the status of a tyrant. They're men and women of extremes, and therefore, are hated by the reaction to their principles, which grow in numbers as much as the tyrant indulges in excesses.

6. A benevolent tyrant is a dullard. A cruel tyrant is a radical. That is most often the case.

7. Some may be confused as to my usage of the term Tyrant, who we may commonly figure as a ruler who tends to oppress people. In my own thoughts, I refer to them as personification of my proposed spectrum; yet we can reach a compromise that, I hope, people will understand more thoroughly.

Let us say that tyranny, in these notes I write, defines extremely loose conduct and bypass of given laws or the greater desires of the people. Anarchy (and therefore the extreme benevolence of our tyrant) is idiocy and bereft of senses, politics, or proper thought for the great public. Cruelty (and therefore the extreme cruelty of our tyrant) is authority and is made of order at its extreme, forced into the daily minutiae of life, and without care for the great public.

8. I conclude with this extended greetings given by Plato to Dionysus, taken from the third letter of the thirteen he'd sent to and fro alongside his hand in the fall of Dionysius (or rather, the genesis and prequel to that incident, his failure to teach Dionysius the virtue of wisdom, on behalf of Dion):

PLATO TO DIONYSIUS, GREETINGS.​

‘Is this the most appropriate way to address you, or should I wish you welfare, as I usually do in letters to my friends? You yourself, so I am told by those who were with you on the embassy to Delphi, addressed the god with this fawning expression, writing, they say,

Greetings to you! May you continue the pleasant life of the tyrant!

For my part I should not address such an exhortation even to a man, far less to a god. To God it would be enjoining something contrary to nature, since the divine has its seat far removed from pleasure and pain; and as for man, pleasure and pain more often do harm, by breeding stupidity, forgetfulness, folly, and insolence in his soul. But enough from me on the subject of salutations; read this and make whatever use you please of it.’

So and so.

 

[Elephantom]

# 3

I met my friend, Martem, during a school reunion; we had met after a long time. He bought a bottle of Jim Beam, we sat down near our old cafetaria, and then exchanged greetings and chit-chat. Our conversation soon turned to the matter of politics.

MARTEM: What do you think about the politics going around the States?

ME: Why do you ask, Martem?

MARTEM: Ah, just a talk, just a talk.

ME: If you say so. I think it's scandalous.

MARTEM: And why do you think it's scandalous, friend?

ME: The scandals, that's why! This man, Donald Trump, he's the peak of absurdity!

MARTEM: Only that, friend?

ME: Not to mention, the rising threat of extremism. The Klan! Gods.

MARTEM: But that is present here too, friend, is it not?

ME: Well, I suppose so.

MARTEM: Well, friend, why do you think Trump is scandalous?

ME: Did I imply that?

MARTEM: To an extent.

ME: Oh, well. I'd like to say, first, that foreign relations ratings have dropped noticeably since the beginning of his term.

MARTEM: Why so?

ME: He's a businessman, for starters.

MARTEM: A lot of presidents have had business experience. It's normal.

ME: He's not a politician, Martem. He has no political experience.

MARTEM: Continue, then.

ME: He's a bad businessman. Three or four bankruptcy cases, I heard. How's a man with a record like that even offered candidacy?

MARTEM: So, in that manner, you say that american politics are in a state of scandal.

ME: I'm merely pointing out the root source, which is, to say, one Donald Trump. His extremism brought some people to his side, excluded some people. He's created a schism.

MARTEM: Ah, yes.

ME: And I won't even start on his sexual deviance and his bad blood with the FBI. The feds think he's got a connection with Putin.

MARTEM: Don't you think that's excessive, friend?

ME: Perhaps, but taking his defensive behaviour into account, I'm inclined to doubt his integrity.

MARTEM: On that, I will concede.

ME: The schism I mentioned earlier?

MARTEM: Yes?

ME: It has caused the rise of extremist hardliners, promoting partisanship. America's in a pickle, partisan, and only you can fix it! That's what they say.

MARTEM: Make America great again.

ME: As if it weren't great already.

MARTEM: But, why is it that I'm having this feeling you're politically influenced?

ME: I, biased? You hurt me, for that is so beyond my character. When I consider extremism, I consider it in all forms. I would've pointed out other presidents and candidates for presidency, but Donald Trump's the most apparent, most visible president.

MARTEM: That man has a stage presence, true. Whether for good or otherwise, that I cannot say.

ME: There have been good effects. He's a great counterpoint to the extreme liberalism that's threatening to overtake America.

MARTEM: In what ways, friend?

ME: In a lot of ways, Martem. Take, for example, the enforcement of diversity.

MARTEM: And you're against it?

ME: I'm averse to the concept of partisanship, Martem. The criticisms of a lack of diversity is, safe to say, ill. Look at Japan, for example: they're mono-cultural, a white guy probably wouldn't be able to live there comfortably and without hearing the term Gaijin a few times, and they expect America to take in their guys.

MARTEM: Surely times have changed?

ME: Well, they have. The popularity of western media has affected Japan's youth, but it's still insignificant. The basic cast, their hard traditions, have yet to be removed. What I mean is . . .

MARTEM: They need to let go of old conceptions?

ME: Something like that. There was a saying.

MARTEM: Continue, friend.

ME: Alas, I must go now. How's little Timmy and Toad doing?

MARTEM: Dead.

ME: Partisan!

MARTEM: Just kidding.

ME: Not funny.

 

[Elephantom]

# 4

- How do you get better at writing? You don't.

- Assuming more writing means a more wider berth of knowledge regarding the trade, how does one write more? Simple. Take it just as you would take your job or occupation. Get up, wash and rinse your face, go to someplace isolated, and start getting those fingers arthritic.

- How do you combat Arthritis? You don't.

- How do you live with Arthritis? With a bit of tough luck, elbow grease, and a pair of shaved knuckles.

- In plain terms? Well, just grit your teeth through it, mate.

- There are other ways to get Arthritis, so one should be careful and considerate of their fingers at all times. Extended durations of tremolo picking, for example, can cause tendons to tangle, locking your fingers.

- Ouch.

- These are not scientific facts. Get that into your noggin.

- Females tend to have a lesser presence in the world due to a few centuries of constant misogyny.

- In some cultures, that is not the case. Why, in spite of featuring goddesses of particularly marked degree, were the Greeks and Romans misogynist?

- I shall never know.

 

[Elephantom]

# 5

I'm a fledgling writer, as I've said so earlier, and thusly intend to write a novel and publish sometime in the far future— mostly due to personal indecision and problems, I've never gotten around to it. Nevertheless, I've practiced the form, I've taken advice, and I like to think I've gathered up a bit of wisdom about writing a novel. So, accordingly, I will try to provide a serial of advices on the matter:

1. One of the bigger problems that plague a writer is procrastination, or writer's block, which can often lead to complete or indefinite abandonment of a project. It can stem from many issues: dissatisfaction with progress or content, problems in life, or just boredom. Now, a lot of people say, ‘Just write, man,’ but it simply doesn't work that way. It's the same as when people try to offer feedback on depression (‘Snap out of it’), not to say both are of similar magnitude, but the prevalence of ignorance is similar in both terms. I don't know a lot about fixing procrastination, as I'm actually a victim of it, but one of the ways you could increase productivity is by treating the progress of your novel as a job. That's right, an actual damn occupation, just not a past-time. Wake up, wash your face, throw away the clutter in your schedule, sit down in front of your laptop and start typing. For a few hours or until a certain quota is met. While it may not fix the problem, it may change your perspective of the situation, and thereby ease progress (a lot of casual writers simply give up on projects out of boredom, and using this perspective can fix this facet of writer's block).

2. Planning. A lot of writers claim that they start with the ending first, and then slowly waltz down to the beginning. I don't know if it's possible, having never tried it, and I honestly find it preposterous. Yet, this ideal, or concept, outlines planning ahead and foresight as key points to adopt when writing a full-fledged novel. That is something I can back, something you should back. Now, a lot of people hate planning, because it's extremely boring, but sometimes you just have to do what you hate. It's quite necessary— who said any occupation, any sport, any hobby, was all fun, roses, and games? When you play rugby, you also have to deal with brain injuries; when you play soccer, you have to deal with annoying managers; when you collect cheese rinds, you have to deal with malicious odour; when you make music, you have to deal with onslaughts of populist opinion; just the same as you when you have to deal with the technicalities of writing a novel. Whether it be world-building or simple research, there should be a modicum of behind-the-scene effort put into your novel. Your earnest love just won't suffice.

3. Try not to derive from other authors too much. It's a simple advice. Of course, we all derive our works from something, even to an unconscious level, but creativity and originality is something readers can and will appreciate. That being said, never go for cookie-cutter plots, know that sometimes even cliches can be used effectively, and also take it to mind that subversion of tropes doesn't always lead to a fantastic product.

4. Characters. Right. One of the most difficult aspects of writing is creating the characters, because they're more often than not the central aspects of a novel— while there are, of course, some that feature the setting as the prime aspect of the story, but those are very unconventional and seldom seen. There are two types of characters that make the cut: dynamic characters with a strong development over the book(s), or a round character that already has multiple facets to them. Both require extensive planning, thinking, to deal with, but the fruits are great. One thing I must say is that characters should always be more individual, on their own basis, rather than be apparatus to the author's individuality— this is just a recipe for disaster for a lot of amateur writers or up-and-coming authors. Tackle meta-fiction and real-life-parallels with caution.

5. Ask for feedback from other people, discuss with them, brainstorm a bit— this will give you an additional insight on your works (creators oft tend to be oblivious of the flaws in their creations), and allow you to fully realize aspects of your novel or your novel as a whole. Also, it will assist you in maintaining the quality of your work (and quantity if you've got an editor). This is a very important but overlooked part of writing, because just going through it alone can be very difficult and may require intense levels of self-critique (which itself can be very dangerous, as it can make an author too conscious of their own work, and thus breed dissatisfaction by the ton).