I support the idea that all creatures on earth are biological machines. This propositions simplifies everything and takes out the "mystic" in human interaction. When love and sadness can be quantified as the direct result of chemical reactions in the brain, then that makes emotion both real and creates a sort of unaccountability for the individual that feels the emotion. Perhaps that idea could extend even further to include the way people react to their emotions. Imagine for a moment a world where these ideas are embraced. Scary isnt it? I think a good deal of the fear people feel when they imagine such a world is a result of the ego and its desire to preserve itself. In the interest of human preservation religions exist, and emotions like "love" are assigned a mystical implication. I agree, it is much more romantic to tell someone, "I love you" rather than, "Your facial symmetry and they way our past expieriences have altered my brain chemistry lead me to say I have unusually high levels of seratonin running about in my brain; something which could be replicated by eating large quantities of chocolate."

Yes, it is scary to think that the words, "I love you" are meaningless in the romantic sense. It is scary to think that any emotion we feel is meaningless because it is the logical and direct result of an altered state of mind.

Now what would happen if we strove to acheive and unaltered state of mind? This would be emotion-free living. This makes me entertain notions of a logically motivated "Vulcan-esque" society. A nightmare to some, a dream to others. There would exist no longer the arts as we know them. Interesting.

Anyhow my family is here and talking which is distracting me more than I was previously so I will have to continue this later.

For as long as I can remember I have been trying to figure myself out. Usually I find it easy to figure other people out. Most people are very much the same and they all have similar motives, needs and desires. Sometimes however I do run across that person that is a little more complex and mysterious. Generally though, its an easy task for me to get a pretty good estimation of whether I can trust someone or not, or if they have good or evil designs. Yet try as hard as I can, when I look deep into myself, I find many more questions than answers and I am lead to think that there is nothing about me that I can put any trust in. Everything must be thrown into the pool of doubt.

I think I have a pretty solid and rational basis for my beliefes--or lack thereof. I am of the thinking that every human action is driven by selfishness. All deeds we do, whether they be perceived as good or bad, are selfishly motivated. Just as the serial rapist feels a selfishly motivated sense of empowerment when he preforms his evil act, the chaste and generous nun feels a sense of good and fulfillment when she preforms her good acts. I think that the nun, even if she protests, must eventually cave in to the realization that all her motives are driven by selfish desire. Hell, her religion itself is based on the selfish desire for eternal life and eternal joy. If it weren't for those rewards the nun would not have gotten involved in her faith in the first place.

There are numerous other examples I could cite just of the top of my head, but that is not my interest. I think I have made my position clear on human motivation. Humans are essentially narcissistic creatures who interact on the premise of an all-pervasive selfishness. Humility is a topical guise most often attributed to the perceptions of others; not the humble themselves.

Now I am then forced to examine the nature of the selfishness of my own actions. Just as the nun's selfishness manifests itself as a good, does my selfishness manifest itself as a good? Furthermore, examining the nature of selfishness itself, is it inherently bad, good or can it be both? When held up to the bright light of ideals, such as the prototype of the selfless god, is selfishness a treait of evil or is the prototype itself a mistake?

Then I come to the notion that all these questions are a result of the influence of others, and as such are based in another selfishness. But that also means that they are the product of concepts, and that everything around us is actually not real. Everything we build our lives around and for are things that do not exist. They are impossibilities. These impossibilities include the American Dream, the concept of Beauty, Democracy, God, Heaven, Hell, Happiness, Griefe, and many others.

Is it possible then that nothing at all is real? Certainly one could not live his life convinced that getting dressed in the morning was taking part in a fantasy. Yet the act of getting dressed in the morning is rooted in an unreal and impossible concept. No longer is it an act of self-preservation. In earlier times men had to dress to protect themselves from the environment. Now men dress to further perpetuate the unreal and impossible mandates of a Judeo-Christian/Islamic concept that tells us that nakedness is wrong. So then perhaps it is possible that although the clothes themselves are very real, the selfish motivation behind it is the direct result of an impossible and unreal ideal.

I wish I had the time and eduacation to elaborate more on all of these questions and thoughts. Even as I write them down they are stewing and shaping and hopefully gaining more focus. But what could be the point of this exercise in the first place? My quest to understand myself may itself be the pursuit of an impossible ideal and should suffer the same fate I relegated religion to: fuck it.