Are we to start with the examination of the external, or the internal?
Now, I suppose that depends on what you’re aiming to think about.
Does thinking require a pen and paper?
How far can one go relying on their own memory as an encyclopedia of thoughts already thought? Those thoughts must remain accurate as well, for they must be built upon to develop any sort of stature.
But there lies the problem of the segregation of science and soul: one demands its vigorous recording for the sake of becoming more than a mere recognition, and the other is so difficult to record and even observe, recognition can be an enormous step.
And then soul becomes science.
If soul is anything but expressed - as in expression is recorded and later examined - it has become science.
Does soul demand thinking?
Is there merely an immediate knowledge, when questions are posed inward, that can only be called for at a precise moment which involves the soul and its existence?
Can pondering truly bring forth a deeper understanding of self?
Will you ever better know your own desires?
For that is all we are, is it not?
What more than desire is there?
All emotion, after all, is merely the result of the gratification, or lack there of, of previously or still held desires.
So why do we write the matters concerning the heart’s desires?
It must simply be to express and be understood, there must be a desire to be understood.
Perhaps better, to be heard.
And now is when the soul has become science.
But I literally just said the soul is hard to observe.
So how could I question whether pondering it lacks benefit?
But how could we not know what we want?
Where is the confusion?
The confusion is in the existence of others.
We work to please the world.
It cannot be helped, as pleasing the world is also pleasing our selves.
But your interests are not mine, yet so horrible I would feel to deny you of your satisfaction.
So I stand at a cross-road.
I could make him, her , them, him, her, them, him, her, or me happy.
And theoretically by choosing any which one of them, all would gain a little happiness, for after dealing with the realization that my choice wasn’t the one they wished for me, they would recognize the choice made another they knew and therefore desired happiness for happy.
So based on that, I should make me happy, should I not?
Then everyone will be happy, and I will be happy with myself.
Unless of course I wasn’t.
But why wouldn’t I be?
Because despite your claims that you are happy for and proud of and love me, I can’t bring myself to fully believe you, because I know you aren’t fully telling the truth.
Because if the choice was yours, you would have made it differently, which means if you could go back in time and change the choice I’ve made to the match your desires, you would.
So I let you down.
Even though I didn’t.
Cause I never could.
But I did.
And science exists to distract us from ourselves.
Why should I fear writing what I feel to be true?
Because I would accuse myself of feeling a paradox.
Because I want it both ways.
I don’t feel things to be true.
I feel my feelings to be true.
I don’t fear writing what I feel to be true.
That is self-gratifying.
And oh how I love gratifying my self.
I fear writing what I rationalize to be true.
And I fear it because it accuses my feelings of being impure.
Writing is synonymous with expressing.
Wait, what the hell.
I can reason any direction for any argument.
Well, most arguments.
So, feelings do not demand to be written.
Thoughts demand to be written.
With the organizations of thoughts, and further recognition of rational truth which can stand behind the answers to the questions the heart demands be answered, whether they be the answers desired or not, a framework for the obedience of the desires can be constructed.