Social Goods

[Another blog entry of sorting through my thoughts while listening to classical guitar tag radio on last.fm. No useful storyline here...]

I am a sample of the snapshot of the condition of this planetary object on which I sit. The snapshot lives and breathes and changes conditions while I type this snapshot. Thus, I am free of being. I am part of the snapshot's frozen moving image, part foreground, part background.

Free of being, I am free of thought. Free of thought, I am free of comparing my condition to other conditions similar to mine. No comparisons, no conditions, no connections.

Being not-connected (as opposed to unconnected), I have no values. Not aware of being socially unaware.

Free to meditate.

Free to not be.

Being free, I am without ethics or morals. I have no social bearing, neither ill nor good.

Yet, I exist in perspective. Depth perception. This collection of atoms and molecules in constant motion.

I am part of you even when I say I want space to be me so I can change perspective in imagining I am not me.

To be AND not to be, that is the solution. I cannot say both that I am part of the environment and that the environment doesn't care whether I exist or not as person or species. By being a person and part of a species in the environment, the environment cares whether I and/or my species exist ("cares" in the sense that the environment changes because of the existence of one person/species). One and the same even though we want to say we are separate.

I may not talk about our worlds within worlds of social goods but they exist anyway and they care about my existence because we react to and interact with each other knowingly and unknowingly.

Thus, I look at monogamous relationships as one form of social goods/services built up into memes but also part of species-level preservation techniques exhibited by many living things in the realm of duality. I am part of duality and I am part of unity. I am part of social circles I see and part of social disjointedness I cannot see. Social celebrations and social taboos - all a matter of perspective.

How do I express my love for another person and have that love mean whatever that person wants it to mean while at the same time knowing that I physically restrict the celebration of my love for others because of the social contract I made in my subculture to ensure a lifetime monogamous physical relationship with one other?

My love for one is my love for all. Some see my all-encompassing love and interpret my openness in terms that I do not. I care and I do not care how others express their love, whether through words such as these or through physical intimacy - I have no ethical/moral judgments about their behaviour - there are many ways to express your love for ones you're with when you're not with the one you love.

How does a group of atoms and molecules - temporary energy states - show that its condition is compatible with a similar group without merging with that similar group? Or rather, in what form does the merger take place?

By putting down these groups of words, I am a writer of blogs and a former writer of novels, stories, poems, essays, skits, sketches, newspaper articles and other nefarious farces. By spending hours putting down these words, I make combinations that I like to share with others, others who I love because my love of life is too strong to keep to myself.

Are there real limitations to my love or imaginary ones? Of either, which part of the environment that I cannot see interacts with this love and finds its way back to me in some other form, in concert with or discordant to my environmentally-local, subcultural social contract?