I like to detail exactly how I feel at any given point. Exactly the pattern in which my feelings are making their impression on my mental mind. Why can feelings not be fully interrpreted into the language of the mental? I know, instead, that we don't try to do the impossible, which is to accurately represent precisely the complexities of what we feel with words that we can ponder over and share with others. No, we sum things up into something simpler that will vaguely represent our feelings. A vague summation that will brief ourselves and others, through luinguistics, on what's happening when we feel at any given point.

People care too little for the inexplicable. In my opinion, it's a mark that they care not for the genuine, only what service these summations can do for the ego. I know how that feels. Could I, though, explain how it properly feels? We use these summations, these labels, because it's easier to understand the most superficial level of our beings. Well, that's not true, we can't understand the superficiality because it is still a part of a deeper more complex thing. The skin cannot be explained until we understand how it was created and for what purpose. But, at least, we can live a life, devoid, indeed of understanding but still purposeful. Because our goal in life is not to understand what is living but to simply be and use ourselves to live. We often unquestioningly be.

Let's, for a moment, pause and think about some of the most inexplicable, by language, things that we feel. Let's not accept that words like "happy" or "sad" can accurately detail what it is we feel. Let's allow ourselves to observe that no words can transcribe what it is we feel. We're used to our feelings triggering the words that we've taught. Sometimes we screw it up anyway and mix up distinctions like "angry" and "mad". Is there a difference? Yes, but also no, because the distinction between the two is still a superficial distinction. There probably is not so much a distinction between the "mad" and "angry" times as there is a distinction between each individual time we ever feel. Because even though these sensations can become familiar, we can also allow that different combinations and stimulants provide different reactions. The superficial feeling may be generalized. Perhaps we can identify if it's "bad" or "good". But what do these reactions really mean? What do they really tell us about what the stimulants mean to us?

I find that, at least, somewhat translatable. Emotions are murky, but the relevance IS actually not part of the emotional body. As if, instead of originating out of the murkiness, it actually originated out of a faculty similar to my conscious, mental mind. And thus, although it displayed itself through the feelings, emotions or sensations that I feel half physically and half mentally and really - we say - emotionally... they can be understood by surpassing the impossible task of translation and simply seeing the mental relevance.

At least it's mental for me. Always logical and rational. My emotions, though ambiguous as they are, serve to symbolize something on the surface, because emotions are easily accessed. However, if we categorize each seaparate sensation into a lumpy worthless summation.... how can we ever expect to identify the real distinctions, which are actually the distinctive relevancies that stimulate an emotion to come to the surface and make its appareance felt, and thus, make something deeper known to us.




I find it hard to transcribe my wisdom into intellectual sentences. I suppose because the nature of intellect is to make absolutes, as I'm doing right this very minute. And I know, wisely, that my absolutes are not indeed absolute. How can I put down my wisdom, without making it a lie?