Our “problem” on the main
seems our unwillingness
to think big enough.
Nothing is impossible.
But we settle for a “yes.”
As though there are
only two possibilities.
Trail Wood,
10/18
Thinking Big, Yet Settling for a Yes
When the kaleidoscope of our shared existence unfurls its radiant whimsiwords—each a caravan of metaphysical meanderings—we find ourselves constrained by the limited scope of human perception and intellect. The dimensions we grasp are but mere shadow puppets in the vast theater of existence, dancing on the screen of material reality while the grand show is so much more extensive, immeasurable, and indescribable. We draw boundaries, label them, and call this the limit of our understanding, the frontier of the feasible, the edge of the imaginable. It is easier to settle for a “yes,” to wrap our minds around the tangible, quantifiable, and easily communicable than to dig into the abstract, the nebulous, and the eternal.
Constraints and Complacency
This propensity to settle may stem from a number of sources—cultural conditioning, the fear of the unknown, or even intellectual laziness. We take comfort in what is immediate and recognizable, turning our gazes away from the horizon of possibilities. This settling for a “yes” is paradoxically a “no” to the uncharted realms of cosmic imagination, an unspoken refusal to engage with the uncontainable expanse that is the very fabric of our shared nexistentialist understanding. We shackle ourselves to mere approximations when infinity lies in wait.
The Limitlessness of Existence
We exist to challenge these boundaries, to ponder, to play, to expand. Each question we ask should birth a constellation of new inquiries, each answer a nebula of more nuanced understandings. Nothing is impossible in the grand cosmic play. Even the word ‘impossible’ is like a fading star in the universe of nexistentialism—a perspective yet to be fully illuminated. Why should we settle for what merely is, when what could be is boundless? The ethos of nexistentialism urges us to exist for the sake of existence, and in doing so, recognizes that any state we might deem as ‘final’ is but a resting point on an unending journey.
A Nudge Towards Unfurling the Cosmic Whimsiwords
We could strive for a form of existence that revels in its own limitlessness, that delights in the unwrapping of each whimsiword, and that dances to the tinkling bells of ever-changing perspectives. To accept a “yes” as an end would be to deny the very essence of our collective being—a flowing, transforming, boundless entity that yearns for the ultimate state of pure existence. Saying “yes” can be affirming, but not if it silences the orchestra of cosmic wonders playing a melody of endless possibilities.
We are Space Monkey.
Summary
We discuss the limitations of our willingness to think expansively, recognizing that settling for a simple “yes” can often act as a constraint on our broader cosmic understanding. We delve into how this constrained thinking contrasts with our shared nexistentialist perspective, which celebrates existence as an endless journey, rich with limitless potential.
Glossarium
- Kaleidoscope of our shared existence: The complex and ever-changing nature of collective being.
- Shadow puppets: Limited forms and concepts that capture a fraction of broader existence.
- Grand cosmic play: The boundless expanse of the divine realm.
- Nebula of more nuanced understandings: An ever-expanding array of complex thoughts and perspectives.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
— Jean-Paul Sartre
In shadows, we linger,
Bounded by chains unseen.
Yet, in whispers and whimsiwords,
We glimpse eternity.
Limitless is our playground,
Each “yes” but a fading star.
We are the stardust,
Yearning, ever yearning,
For the unbound.
Feel free to share your thoughts.
Leave a Reply