I was very upset (well maybe puzzled?) with the multiple online intepretations of something I read recently, and I have a hypothesis about this haha. I feel Doestoevsky is weirdly one of those guys who got a lot of things right? Well or maybe, there are fundamental problems that exist. Very well, I love how this kinda agrees with the fact that, one creates oneâs own problems? Maybe this fact was the thing that stayed timeless?
The post from yesterday, there were a few things about the image that I did consider while drawing it. Okay, first things first, the one on the left was supposed to be a depiction of the hierarchical system where the first thought was a baby (the hairstyle) and in green, and the older person (again, from the hairstyle) in red, putting the first thought down. The fact that both of them were wearing diapers, was to show that they both had problems/flaws and the fact that both of them had a hunched back, was to show how these pillars were, infact just me (or atleast a depiction of me) and being in this school, did really kinda make me feel weak (kinda hunched again). It was also intentional that the green kid was sitting (in a lower height) and the old man was standing, which kinda imposed a difference in someway, allowing factors like this (and the age of course) to establish psuedo âlevelsâ or hierarchies that doesnât necessarily have to exist. Meanwhile, the one on the right, where they were all of the same color, same heights, on the same pedestals, was to show that these factors that created (or at least made it look like, or cause the psuedo order of priority) were same for all of them. There were still differences like the hairstyle, and the arms, and the expressions, which was to show the arguments between each other. This is all that I thought about, not much I know, but Iâm no piccaso nor a doestoevsky, nor do I intend to be one, at least intentionally. Meanwhile, the kind soul pointed out parallels to how the red and green people were just different versions of one person with different internal pillar structure beliefs, and that the abuse there was a depiction of envy? and the group on the right was more of a jury, the actual pillars on a meta level judging oneâs multiple selfs and not necessarily the pillars themselves? wow.
Creation is a function from one space to another which is mostly a projection mapping (psychologically, as well as, Iâd argue theoreticaly in someway?), why is that? because you go through so many experiences and no matter what it is that youâre putting down, is a âproductâ or more an âaftermathâ of the experiences youâve gone through. If you argue, my immediate response would be that, the person deciding to create is by itself an aftermath of the experiences (haha? idk, prolly). While unfortunately interpretation is the other way around, a projectionâs inverse, which unfortunately doesnât really exist as âoneâ solution/function necessarily. So technically, that would kinda, idk, explain easier, that from a set perspective, that even for the same person, there could be more interpretations of the same art. The beauty (that can turn ugly real quick) here is that people tend to extend this psuedoinverse to then create more points/maps that werenât really intended earlier like the case above, but crossing this line, usually, mostly, ends up bad.
Expanding on this, (unfortunately?) if every action of yours is a product of your experience too, for convenience sake, lets call your actions âartâ too. Trying to understand oneâs thoughts/feeling through their art technically shouldnât be possible? But yes, I understand function approximators exist (WE LIVE IN THE AI ERA DAWG? - I hear you âwell actuallyâ meme person, jk sorry if that was rude, I mostly assume its me who will read this later in the future, and nobody else, so, well am I allowed to make fun of the future version of myself, if its not really me and its another person intrinsically? idk), and technically the whole idea of therapists is having people with strong enough priors on these functions to be able to make the other personâs life better by understanding their thoughts and feelings? Makes me nervous for them. How do some people be so confident enough, to first, believe they have a good sense of whatâs good/bad in the world, then a conditional function on what is good/bad for another person, and finally, be able to make calls that they believe will change the other personâs life that the other person âACTUALLLYâ does in their life? This makes me so scared. The fact that your actions have reciprocations on someoneâs life trajectory sounds so scary. I know Iâve ruined multiple lives by being a part of it, and thatâs something Iâll never forgive myself for, but I think that Iâm slightly more mature now, that I want to be changing peopleâs lives the least possible way because I STRONGLY BELIEVE, that the first hypothesis (that one knows whats good and bad in the world) is very shaky to begin with, and me specifically? man, I do not know anything. Thatâs a line Iâm never crossing. Well, I do see, how the more confident you are in the psuedo inverse, the fact that you know a good enough chunk of whatâs good bad with a high confidence, does have the potential to move the line around. But really, I guess Iâm someone who isnât crossing the line unless Iâm absolutely sure, given how all Iâve done crossing it is making lives harder for people. But, I do want to help people sometimes. This grows out to the classic problem of, if you see a snake eating a bird, people ask you to not interfere and try and save the bird, because, well its the flow of nature, you let things happen the way theyâre supposed to happen, without you being present. But am I not part of nature too? Isolating myself and letting things happen the âwayâ they happen, is all good, but whatâs the point of my existence then? How do I borrow sorrow and wither, if that was what gave my existence meaning? When do I cross the line? When and Where is the line? Will nature be okay with it, will they still let me over, if I cross the line?
I see people who cross their line. Iâm not envious of their boldness to cross the line, rather inspired. Is it envy, to wish I had the clarity to want to either cross or not to, or is it growth? I donât judge either choices, just admire those who have one. Why did the chicken cross the road, I thought would be a funny joke to add here, but well, atleast the chicken âcrossedâ the road, didnât it? Iâm happy for the chicken, not envious of it.