Second recorded thought-stream on self

For as long as these words can be read, be they readable, mankind will have not yet found a more efficient form of communication.

Humans have assumed the responsibility of arrogance and cannot withdraw from the challenge. For as long as the probability of extinction exists, we must view it as necessity. Otherwise, we reproduce under the illusion of eternal history.

The urge to reproduce is often uncontrollable, so it is understandable if people choose to believe any set of things because other sets are less compelling.
It is you and I, we, who are compelling. Throughout life we make repeated efforts to have others do as we prefer. Those who succeed more often than not become our leaders, thereby disturbing the delicate balance of mutual complacency. The complexity of the situation escalates when considering other facts such as the ratio of leaders to followers, what set of words define each term, the cause of preferences, and plausibly, the definition of success.

It is plausible that a person feel successful given they accomplish relatively little because they generally do not accomplish much. So then is it plausible there exist a person who feels unsuccessful in spite of their many accomplishments? Surely there is a threshold for every person such that attaining status anywhere beyond that threshold guarantees they feel successful, It is also important to note the human tendency to desire success. In its most fundamental state, I find it easy to visualise success in the context of prehistoric man, and how beautifully simple the notion becomes.

When the key to survival and the key to success are no longer the same, the issue of defining success becomes relevant, but maybe the conditions under which survival becomes superfluous take priority.

We are all brought into existence (from?) without choice. Past events predetermine new life. So when does the notion of worry or anxiety emerge clearly in a person's mind? At what moment is the cause of fear unambiguous?
Is it as obvious as a newborn's wailing?

--
I have always found it interesting how for a person the trauma of a peaceful birth exceeds that of a peaceful death. Even more interesting is how for people observing these events the opposite is true.
--

People often claim to believe certain things because they do not object to the fact, do not object to the belief, and can easily explain why. It is at the latter where most people err. Most people have multiple corroborating explanations, some which may be contradictory, unnecessary, or more subtly, suggestive of how they do not have any reasoning as to why they should believe anything different. It is easier to feel something and put it into words than to put in words something that can be felt.

For people to be motivated to want to grasp the nature of their being it is necessary to put it within reach. A a general rule people will hardly go beyond words to appease their doubts, so they may return to satisfying their whims. It is all too important to emphasise the plausibility of the case where a person will not want to grasp it even if in reach. In this case an old theory naturally arises: that the nature of being cannot be grasped, and further, maybe that it has been ordained by a divine entity, also beyond our grasp, but is known to periodically remind us it exists (whenever an event that rings of the first event which caused man to conceptualise such an idea occurs).

I wonder if somehow the first man to intuit divine creation is still learning to speak. Humans keep stumbling over their words, unable to think.