i think i'm more conscious than my peers and even my professors. when they try to teach me i feel like they're pleading with me not to move beyond them, so they can stay the same and not feel left behind. sentimental nonsense.

today people were talking about there being no biological basis for race. that's idiotic. variations in physical characteristics are indicative of separate evolution and adaptation to different environments. also, physical attributes don't necessarily point to internal characteristics, but who is to say that the "psychology," or inner organic machinery of people from different sects has not also evolved separately?

it's just foolhardy to deny that when people are apart, they evolve differently. this is not to say that what we have in common is not more important; as long as we can breed with other animals, i feel that cannot be the case. we're sort of like the twins, separated at birth, except that all of humanity is just a branch off the same tree that contains all other things. we exist because the dialectical process of the universe has made us this way.

people think: appearances are everything. no facts, only interpretation. anything, though, is in conflict between it's existing and the inevitability of its nonexistence. "truth" does not apply to "there are no facts, only interpretations" because that statement itself is only an interpretation. when we think of expressions of people as just the transmission of what is inside their head to ours, or that as the "ideal" method of interpretation, with the end result being love, the unification of two individuals, whose charm lies in its inexplicability, its inability to be proven.

consciousness of alienation = freedom? maybe. people feel like just because they're talking about ideology, they must be doing it critically. that just saying certain words proves your credibility because "the man" doesn't want you to talk about your dick, or what racism is, or how the superbowl is stupid. but that's just the thing: this mindset makes one's identity a matter of simple social interaction, which is how we want to see everything because that's what gets us through our days. just as bad as talking about mainstream concepts, though, is developing a mainstream alternality, that doesn't want to listen. such subsets of society only serve to recreate the ideological movements of society (the world, the universe, all possible universes) in a transformed and distilled way, a process which is the essence of what domination is all about. people think they can approach "truth," or at least gain knowledge that is "more true" by sitting in a college classroom, when the whole point is to realize and feel that no knowledge is more true than any other knowledge.

heisenberg:
you can know
1) where something is, or
2) what its change is like.

"truth" is the attempt to define #1, and asserts that #2 is part of #1. it privileges the present, in that it defines something's change as the modification of its characteristics. in other words, it says "the dialectic is true" in that it is acknowledged by perceivers as such, and can only be one thing at one time. "truth" serves to define the present through the past, and considers the future to be a distant past.

the dialectic is the attempt to define #2, and asserts that #1 is part of #2. it labels the present meaningless, since what exists at any moment does not exist the next, and something's present characteristics is only a point, dimensionless, on the curve of its history. thus it says "the truth is dialectic" in that what is true changes, etc. "dialectic" serves to define the present through the future, and considers the past to be a traveled past future.

both perspectives deny a contradiction despite the either/or nature of the supposition. realizing their unity in this aspect, however, is a dialectical act. realizing that can then be labeled "truth."

there is no difference between where something is and how it is changing. dialectic truth and the true dialectic, as concepts, are united. they imply a telescopic infinite pro- and regression like the infinite reflections of a mirror, and are equivalent because our idea of the progression of time is arbitrary- why could we not be going back in time? this is the aspect of my thought which i believe transcends humanism, because i assert that the world is not the sum of its appearances.

"the simulacrum is the truth which hides the fact that there is none."