Receiving Input vs Criticism

I see you got a gun. You ain’t on shit until you blow that bitch

  • Young Pappy

I’m sitting outside in a garden. Looking at a plant. There is an acknowledgement on my part that regardless of my own input (criticism), there is a biological organism establishing itself relative to the fact that, as an input, I am absorbing/observing an impression of a green plant.

Nothing else is known of me. My words describe what is going on and the description adds a layer of mobility.

A reaffirmation confirms the layer of mobility. I am sitting observing a green plant.

The mobility is in an observation that that acts as both an input and criticism. The criticism is subtle but it’s the calmness that allows the input to be felt. At an indifferent level, an animal’s brain waves are shaping its environment on a persistent computational process that has been in our family since time immemorial and an experience we share with the rest of the animal kingdom.

At a very different level, the observation is a criticism of the input that challenges the input based on the presumption the observation makes.

At one level, our observation is objective input. In an indistinguishable, yet different level, our observation couldn’t exist without a subjective inference that forces the existence of the subjective inference.

A frog, for example, could learn from its subjective experience to relate to its in environment in a way that it wouldn’t relate if the environment hadn’t conditioned the frog’s learned response.

The same way we experience this input as objectively an English sentence referencing its own grammatical classification. We are conditioned to reach certain points of understanding based on the input our awareness is accustomed to. Paradoxically, our skepticism is an input that our natural inclination may be wrong and that we need to critically reassess our input with further input.

The “further input” is like a blabbermouth. There’s always remnant input from past events that exist as an input relative to how “we” give it input. So like behavioral therapy, pretending to be happy until you are because our brain is wired based on some correlative synergy between our different body parts. If we re-arrange the body parts, we change the wiring in the brain. Regardless of outcome, the brain will always conjure up an awareness relative the state of affairs of the world.

Skepticism, the ability to greet the brain’s conditioned affirmation with doubt, is like a negative to the overall enterprise of establishing a criticism but it’s only a negative when it’s added to the criticism.

We add negative skepticism to our thinking by accepting alternative meaning to what our brain is quick to establish. By the same token, sometimes unwanted skepticism is the input we receive from our mind. In which case we reaffirm what the skepticism tries to discount.

In either case, our Spirit maintains an ultimate understanding of criticism. Even if we spiral into confusion, we approach the confusion with criticism. Even if we’re forced to entertain negative skepticism against our Spirit, we use criticism to establish an agreement between the input the world is objectively processing and the establishment of our understanding.

Our understanding being a criticism of itself relative to its ability to understand the input, our understanding plays a role in maintaining a relationship between our existential self and the seemingly mechanical world. Our existential self is not the understanding, rather it’s the critic that completes the significance of understanding.

Not the critic that argues with others but the critic that reassures its own input as righteous.

blooms — crazy rants masked as abstract experimental philosophy. s/o CS Peirce