What!?

  I wonder if what I think of what I love really is the thing that I would love for all the life that I would live in the future. It is a very depressing question I could ask myself, perhaps some other people may think the same. I do not entirely know why I am writing this; maybe I would like it to be read; maybe I would like for it to be published in a good paper magazine; maybe it just isn't the thing that I want it to be, but I guess that's okay. Being what you would aspire to be is really a soothing feeling; more important than this might be to actually know what you would love to be. I struggle to be a good listener, or perhaps a good speaker. But, I really start to think of the degrees one could think of when it comes to being good. I tried being a good speaker at my final project in the philosophy intro course that I took in my freshmen year at college, but I guess it all came too personal and not-so-very academic. I guess, that's what it really does to the stuff that demand an intelligible, objective work. I tried being a good listener; it pretty much is easy, but maybe not that easy. It is stupid that I tried to listen to what I may not find very interesting, but atleast now I know that. Anyway, maybe both the experiences that I had were not as bad. I know, for one thing, that I could be a good listener and a speaker, if I wanted to. There may come some set of orders, or perhaps some base-lines to do that; it could even look a little too fabricated and artificial but what the heck. I could live with the fact that I gave it a shot.

  Right now, I'm wondering if this piece needs a little conflict to it to be a better work of writing, but then I start to question do I really need to do that? Is it necessary? Would it be a chaos if I don't do that? My English professor says that a good piece of writing is the one that goes along with the flow and has a conflict there to help it go along in forward direction. Well, here is mine: I am not able to find a conflict; that's my conflict. The more I try to look for a conflict, the more I keep getting further away from the very idea of a conflict, unless driven by a gun at my head. This shows that I even have a very immature sense of humour. I remember having a conversation with my friend who is somewhat depressed by the way that he only sees things in conflict, always. The only resolution that he finds in it is revolution; and that makes me go always against him, not literally, but we argue, yes. I could not resist advocating the view that conflict is another reason for there to be harmony and a synthesis, while he argues that conflict never needs to be to have a synthesis; it could be there if it has to be, and we have to fight for it to be there. Well, this is where I stop to tell him to write a book about it. The answer that I get for this is pretty predictable: Fight for the synthesis. Why don't I find a conflict in anything, then? If there is no conflict, if there is no synthesis to be there on its own, then what is it that makes a synthesis? I think, this is logical contradiction in my statement, but really, if I don't see it, then is there no conflict? Is it only created for the sake of just being there? Do we even need a conflict to move forward? Maybe my friend is just right.

  Being there in the moment where you see a whole series of events that occur simultaneously, including the one that you experience, makes me want to think of multiple conflicts as being the cause of time moving forward. But then, is time really flowing forward like a stream, taking every shift in conflict to be the reason for it to change its course? This is stupid. If this is really it, I maybe need a new pair of glasses to see the world, or perhaps ask everyone that I am not seeing any conflict anywhere, so why do you? Or how do you? I need a thing to think at all times to feel that I am alive, to feel that I, too, am the part of that moment in which people experience multiple events. I need that thought to make me always thinking or doing something. I listen to music, I play music, I watch movies, I sing, I write, I breathe, I think, I move myself from places; is this enough for me to confirm the fact that I am a part of it all? Maybe I need a string to connect some of these events to one another to have a time-line there to inform me of how I am able to sketch the flow of the time and how the experiences are relative to me, only. But then, there's the brain doing that already by recalling all that stuff that I do or think to make the experience into the kind of rope that I demand now to connect me to the past, or perhaps to the present, if not lame it is.

  Struggling for a synthesis is what creates conflict for us and we are to be able to understand that it is not conflict that we need to resolve, but the struggle. This is not me, this is Buddha saying. I think, why not? Buddha maybe right and maybe he just wanted humans to be living for the sake of living and not for others, perhaps. This is like saying 'Dude, you have a life, go live it before it's over!' But, what is the essence of it if you don't explore the dynamics of it. And yes, if you really do find a conflict somewhere in the journey, why not just welcome it, if it's just there for you to have a paradigm shift in the course of your time-line that sketches your life, or will, or has already? This is refreshing. You find new and new conflicts and think that there is something new waiting for you on the other side. Maybe this is the conflict with me that I do not find a conflict out there to make me feel alive; and keeps me alive. Sure, it could be it. Or, it could be something other than this, but that is another conflict, right?

  So, what does it have to do with why I sometimes do not understand that what I really love to do is just not the thing that I want to do as it turns out later? You guys really have a good lot of time to go!