Word to immunity, and all that it do for me
’Cause double entendres seem to fit more suitably
They sold you a paradox, I duck those beautifully
Figured it’s worth it on the way out like duty free, truthfully
The price tag of what it took of me to get to me
The nerve of me tryna flood Fulton Street with Dilla beats
And bet I did all the above to a soliloquy
It’s there because it’s everywhere.
The true hitch is rooted paradoxically in our death. If we’re to buy into en vogue, high status, German intellectualism. Which is valid, we can easily bullshit with along because we can understand nowadays with a tepid toe inside western science that somehow computer mechanical thought is directly correlated with an nearly complete metaphorical understanding of what the fuck our consciousness/awareness is.
What drives us? We don’t know yet.
Where are we driving to? To our death.
What will our death be? Now we’re asking the right questions.
Whether we can have any input on that question is whatever our destination will do. That is, we’re hitched to our destination by what our death will be. We have a death and the forces are too great for it not to be destined. Thus we can safely assume that if we can have a “say” in our death, we have a semblance of autonomy.
Autonomy as a concept is contextualized free movement. There’s some tension on whether movement can ever be free if it’s contextualized, but the context is what determines the freedom. To go outside the context is to make the freedom trivial. To be free in context means to have movements within the context that result in changing the context to some idealized destiny in our head.
“Say,” as it was used two paragraphs ago, is important because saying is the crux of meaning. In the first paragraph, I established that the context of our existence is a quasi-mechanical correlation between the world as it is and our thoughts. “Our thoughts” are another way of saying “Say.” Our guardians growing up and society force us into calculators that produce thoughts. Along the way, there emerges a unique “voice” that is contextualized by the society pressing our buttons and making our calculator voice come into existence through contextualization. Beyond that, we learn to recognize “our” voice as separate from all the other voices. The boundary of “our” voice is defined metaphysically by what significance society has given to that voice.
So we learn to “Say” and we may not be self-aware of it but we aware of the consequences of “Say.” Some people are always serious. Some people are always funny. Some people are always creepy. From the outside looking in. What it’s like to be one of these people can only be said by these people by what they say.
What is there to be said? Apparently a lot if we take a look at the world. Why keep saying anything? What does it mean to say?
Why can’t we hitch our say to anything other than our death?
If we hitch our say in our love for another, that is dedicating our say to a death dedicated to the love for another. Whatever we dedicate our say to, we dedicating to our death.
Self-awareness promotes a calculation that takes our death into consideration when saying anything because our overarching movement is towards death. When we say something, we want to make moves with our words. Where are we moving towards? Towards riches or success? Maybe. But always moving towards death.