We Are All Rhizomes.

8th, June 2020.

Teaddicted.

Raining.

Again, if you're not gonna read this to the end, just scram Arjouk! 

Don't read this italicized paragraph, it's just me bitching again.

Also, this week has been overwhelmingly sad. My hard drive cable was corrupted, we've got loads of assignments from every professor, contingency of using my friend's laptop was aborted for that he spilled hot coffee pot on his keyboard and endless shitty news. 

Luckily, I've developed self-composer and I haven't reacted. It's all right! 

We are all Contradictions.

For the past four years, my life has been so unfathomably sporadic and inconsistent. Not even with people, which is a no-brainer, but with my inner self. I have these voices conking me in the head every time I think of an objective reality. If I am to question these voices, i might consider questioning the contradictions per se. One forces themselves to master their line of thought with 'finesse' and seek to make meaning out of it. Perhaps it's all under the same eclipse of a bigger thought, but it's still just an eclipse. Meaning, it's okay to have contradictions and it's fine to disagree with yourself after a day, a week, a year, or whatsoever. The fact that you realize how contradictory we are, is enough to come to grips with the absurdity of reality. But it's still okay since you had the chance to experience this. 

Chew on This.

Building on the same idea, and if I still have some recollection, my friend and I had a conversation on anti-natalism on our first freshman year in the university. basically, I was an advocate of anti-natalism, and my argument was pretty much influenced by Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, the cruel side of reality, and how it would be arrogant to bring a child to this world of meaninglessness and mental pandemonium. 

A couple of months ago, I've had the same conversation with another friend of mine -fact is they kinda look the same in their spectacles- and I was shit-talking anti-natalism. Perhaps my vantage point has changed, but the way I saw it is, if not giving the last sperm the chance to come out erected, why not give it one and -at least- it had the chance as opposed to not having one at all. Yes, sperms did not choose to go on a race through the cervix to the fallopian tube.  But, it's still a fair chance. Difference is are you willing to bring them up, the way you were not. Further reading and unmotivated interest in Hannah Arendt, could possibly be one of the reasons i looked at this from different prisms. Her emphasis on 'the human condition or potential'. She contends that being born, is in itself a miracle, and unlike animals who are driven by their programmed instinctive impulses, we -humans- have the ability to act. 

“It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before … The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all practical, everyday purposes amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle. The fact that man is capable of action means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable. And this again is possible only because each man is unique, so that with each birth something uniquely new comes into the world.” (Arendt)

 

Again, although it's wishful thinking but cogs are meant to be miniature parts of the wheel, but they are the change if they go awry. 

We are all Rhizomes.

The preamble was meant to pave the way to this beautiful metaphor by Deleuze and Felix Guattari. 

I am not just going to link this to the idea of the contradictory-self, but also to the way we think of everything, (e.g Sex, as Elizabeth Grosz, would later contend). 

Rhizomes or Rhizomatics are underground stem plants that extend their roots in very unpredictably haywire directions. Not only that they are unpredictable and go in different directions, but also creators of new paths and patterns. They might have the same mother-root, but they go in ways that infinitely different. These roots do -in fact- break away from their mother-root.

That could be another way of perceiving meaning in a realm of linguistic meaning in use, as Wittgenstein advances in his Philosophical Investigations. We could think of whatever we, first think to be our ultimate perception, as liable to change and incommensurable sets of interpretations. 

ARBEK, Listen.

Therefore, it's okay to be wrong or to contradict yourself. It's okay to go back to your videos and think of them as 'meh' and it's okay to go back to a song you wrote and tear it apart because you think it was corny. The best virtue is to realize the contradictions of yourself. Why is postmodernism a very solid philosophy in your opinion? It's because -unlike- other logocentric philosophies, it realizes its own contradictions. And why is everyone afraid of shit-talking Derrida? it's not because he is a god or Marshall Mathers, but because he came up with 'Aporia'. Ever thought of a text contradicting itself? doubting its content? that's what happens to you when you think you were corny. It's okay when it happens, whoever makes fun of it will eventually fall in that same trap. 

We might be contradictions, but beautiful ones. The beauty of rhizomes lies in their ability to produce infinite pathways. Same with someone who disagrees and contradicts themselves, they advance at such great speed. 

Also, Miley Cyrus is underrated. Don't @ me.

I'll prolly find this corny tmrw but,

Yeah sure, Whatevs.