I feel like a splash of runny shit against a newly washed linen robe. I did a thing, and now I feel vulnerable. I want to not feel vulnerable because vulnerability is not a good feeling to feel. I’m not even sure if vulnerability is conducive to growth. If anything, I think it just makes me more intolerant towards myself for making me feel vulnerable all of the time. It is a feeling that exists. What the evolutionary origins for such a feeling to exist? Sometimes, I wish that humans weren’t social creatures. Then, I wouldn’t feel the need to feel vulnerable when I do a thing that would make me feel vulnerable. How beautiful would that change be.
I find vulnerability to be an interesting concept in the sense that you are most vulnerable when you least want to be — and that’s kind of the point. The idea of vulnerability revolves around the idea that the more you are attached to the idea of security, the more your idea of security is subject to erosion. Like finance. If there is no attachment to the idea of vulnerability, then there would be no need to fear being vulnerable. It is only when the attachment to vulnerability exists in the first place that vulnerability can consecrate.
Vulnerability is an sentiment that is created through thought. Specifically, a strain of negative thought that I will refer to as vulnerable thought. The existent of vulnerable thought introduces the sentiment of vulnerability to the consciousness. If there is no thought to introduce vulnerability to the conscious mind, then there would be no vulnerability that exists at all. Therefore, it would seem that the act of reducing vulnerability has some basis in reducing vulnerable thought. If thought is the direct cause of vulnerability, then it would seem that the reduction of the cause should lead to the reduction of the creation of the cause. After all, if the magnitude of vulnerable thought is the cause of vulnerability, then it would be true in a logical framework that the reduction of the magnitude of vulnerable thought would also reduce the magnitude of the vulnerability sentiment.
The logical framework, however, only applies to thoughts that follow the logical framework. Namely, as logical beings, all thoughts that are within our consciousness follow the logical framework. Since our self-destructive tendencies do not manifest through conscious thoughts, it is the unconscious thoughts that contain our aptitude towards creating vulnerability. Unconscious thoughts, unlike conscious thoughts, cannot be evaluated using a logical framework. Most unconscious thought acts in direct opposition to conscious thought, which would be acting against the logical framework that our consciousness privileges.
There is thought that exists in accordance to our conscious direction. There is the thought that willed into existence by our consciousness. But then, there is also the unconscious that exists in opposition to the conscious thought. Since the mind is a space where thoughts can interact with each other, the conscious thought and unconscious thought will inevitably mix with each other, breeding new thoughts. There is the byproduct of thought, which takes form as an additional conscious and unconscious thought that exists in varying degrees. The creation of the new thought is dependent on the causation of the thoughts that caused its existence. The classification of the new thought would also be dependent on the covariates between the various causes of the thought in addition to taking account the nature of the two existing thoughts. Since conscious and unconscious thoughts are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive in defining all thoughts that can exist, the covariates of these two thoughts in a thought system are also subjective the the existing covariates of other thoughts, creating an infinite feedback that alters the tendencies of all of the existing thoughts in the system in addition to the new thoughts that are created within the system.
But, to understand the shifts of equilibrium in the the thought system, is important to understand the relationship between conscious and unconscious thought and the thought system is dependent on the contradictory relationship between the two. To put it simply, the nature of the conscious and unconscious thoughts are different, and the system shifts in accordance to the contradictions found within their natures. Since it is irrational to desire vulnerability when evaluating rational self-interest in a logical framework, the conscious thought, in this context, is the force that denies the existence of vulnerability. At least, the conscious thought intends to deny vulnerability because it follows the rational framework that is its nature. It is logical to deny vulnerability its existence in the mind, and the conscious thought follows the logical instruction of the happiness instincts to not be in a state of distress.
It would be unfair, however, to characterize logical thought as the end to the conscious thought. This would be a one-dimensional characterization of conscious thought. But, because thought is an attribute and not a mode, it would be inaccurate to characterize the thought as an attribute that cannot be further meta-examined to reveal more details about the essence of thought that would not be captured through a one-dimensional characterization of thought. There is the conscious thought that follows the stream of consciousness, and then there is the the undercurrent beneath the stream of consciousness that is the unconscious thought, such as the vulnerable thought.
It is irrational, of course, to breed negative emotions when following a logical framework of that determines the optimal distribution of conscious and unconscious thought, so the conscious thought actively attempts to suppress the vulnerable thought. The rationality of the consciousness cannot tolerate the irrationality of the unconsciousness. But, similar to an undercurrent underneath the current, the existence of the undercurrent is a direct challenge to the current itself. But, when the two are in opposition, the negative sentiment overrides the positive sentiment. It is, at least, among most individuals, like me, who have developed destructive behavioral tendencies as the result imperfections in development. Within my mind, which I will take as a framework for the irrational tendencies of the human mind, it is the negative unconscious thoughts that overrule the positive conscious thoughts when the two are in conflict. The act of conscious thought attempting to suppress unconscious thought inevitably cultivates an more intense version of the unconscious thought. The self-destructive impulse feeds off of the irrationality of rationality. The rational instinct of the conscious thought believes that it is acting in accordance towards positive sentiment.
But, in such a scenario, the conscious thought is only acting in terms of rationality in terms of an instinct and not rationality in the form of meta-rationality. Through evaluating the rationality of rationality to one degree, it would be evident that the most rational act would be not to challenge the unconscious thought. The analysis of one degree of meta-rationality would reveal that the act of challenging unconscious thought would not be in the interests of rationality. But, because the stream of conscious thought is an instinct, the consciousness cannot distinguish between acts that seem rational and the acts that are actually rational.
If the rational instinct could truly evaluate the rationality of its own instinct, then it would be able to mitigate the effects of the self-destructive impulse. But, because rational thought cannot separate the rationality of its thought from the instinct of rationality, the absence of seperation would mean that it would be impossible for conscious thought to mitigate the self-destructive impulse, much less suppress unconscious thought altogether. In such a situation, it would seem that once vulnerable thought is introduced into the system of thoughts, it is inevitable that it multiplies and consumes the space in which it occupies. The rational instinct of suppressing unconscious thought would negate any possibilities of the reduction of the vulnerable thought before it had entered into the system in the first place. The spread is inevitable.
The consumption of a thought system into viral breeding ground is ontologically certain. Like epidemics, the spread of the negative thought is extremely fast. But, just like epidemics, there reaches a critical point where the infection has reached the pinnacle level of exposure. The system adapts and shifts into an environment that is unclear. There are other thoughts that are introduced into the system.
The mental space in which the negative thought habitats morphs given the direction of the stream of consciousness. The rational instinct that had sustained the negative thought in the first place no longer holds its ground. Even the instinct can be challenged by other instincts and the inevitability of change. The new environment is no longer conducive for the original negative thought. Without nourishment, the vulnerable thought will die. There are also negative thoughts that counteract existing negative thoughts. Similar to the interaction of the herpes virus and some tumors, the instinct of some negative thoughts challenges the existence of other negative thoughts. Before the herpes virus would attack an organ, it would sometimes first attack a tumor, slowly crippling an otherwise malignant force. The tumor dies, then the herpes does the destructive work it had been engineered to do. Like herpes, before long, the original negative thought is reduced to effectively non-existence.
But, before then, all I can do is wait.