i'm angry

i'm having lots of flashbacks to relationships now past, and i'm angry.

nothing but anger from betrayal.

no reasonable means for reprisal. i can't even lash out despite futility because i recognise the futility.

the only paths are to forfiet myself; my mind, my heart, or my soul.

i could forfiet my mind, and live in opposition to the choices i would make.
i could forfiet my heart, and live as though i've witnessed nothing- no hardship.
i could forfiet my soul, and live in opposition to the inclinations and feelings i have.

but all are dishonest, to myself and others.

i don't believe i will get a fullfilling relationship, i'm too jaded.

i'd be either a drone/slave of utility, a fraud behind a mask, or a ponce/cuck.

there is nothing else of value, just the lie of opportunity- of reward. there is no choice. there isn't even the feeling of capacity to make a mistake without disproportionate reprisal.

i can feel my whole brain contracting in rage. they made choices i have to live with. i was sufficiently expendable.

can i even fake being normal? i did it before and it was a hollow existence, but i wasn't angry. i don't think i can. maybe sadism is the torch out of the anger.

preferred ignorance

There is no argument or knowledge which will impregnate preferred ignorance.

ignorance can be impervious when ratified with delusions of:

• justice/nobility/piety
• accuracy of result/conclusion
• pathos/kindness
• authority
• validity/legitimacy of premise

and so the vissage- the face value or perception- when incorrect, it throws our reality out of line. often we all will act as juvenile self-absorbed contrarians.

most inane things seem this way to me. spouting something heard once by a poor source. and it is always an emotion validated by some higher culture concept; a lofty ideal still covered in spiderwebs, with bored beams rotting beneath one's feet.

"that's not true" fuck your truth. neither is yours for the same reason whatever ambitious delusion you may mis-attribute to it.

...

which is worse ignorance or bad research?

pathos and optimism

so recently i came across the proclamation, 'things will be alright in the end. if things are not alright, it isn't the end'.

it is a sentiment we all want to be true/correct/accurate. but it is a dogmatic assertion, followed by a tautology.

unfortunately while it gives peace of mind by presenting a delusional model of reality. what is the reasonable value of that model?

it lacks utility, accuracy, simplicity/elegance,

but it grants hope and personal presentations of acceptance and sharing/granting of esteem; you matter. it also may grant an objectively invalid placebo and help wills the 'heart' to bear the burden. so maybe it grants an economic return for both parties.

i wonder if it is more ethical to grant an optimistic/dishonest view of the world and rob the other of grasping the dire difficulty of their circumstance, or to rob them of hope by expressing normalized figures.

does optimism belong along side teaching people to feel what others feel, and to try to grasp the circumstance of those suffering ailments beyond wildest experiences?

...
what do people deserve:

• the unambiguous truth, for improvement of their station relative to their past
• a noble lie
• a grand ambition/ideal
• a poetic and accessible beauty/sooth
• a validating emotion
• respect and treatment as equals; no disagreement.
• inclusion to the degree of someone feeling alienation when values collide.