The rule that everything is a narrative, is a narrative truth in itself. ie: a completely debatable opinion. The point being, is that some things are absolutes, or are seemingly absolute because they are based upon an undeniable fact free of logic. When this is the case, there are no words, no debate, nothing, you’ll know it when you feel it, because everything surrounding it is darkness. Call it blindness, free of illusion. It’s still out there.
some words intregue me more then others. one thing that the dictionary reveals is the complexities, richness, and issues that concern certain words and terms. how do i define a word that holds the meaning of so many different applications. such a word has just come up to me, the word is “jerk”. the idea of a jerk has become a common problem in many of my favorite ideals. my definition thus far is; one who undermines and counteracts often recklessly the goals of an ethos.
now this can be applied in both uses of the word jerk, a name to call someone, and a sharp movement. both have the ability to alter the original course of movement, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a negative way.
there are problems with this word and the definition that i have given. in that jerks are sort of essential, in many ways they provoke questions contradictions within the established order. in other ways a jerk is the one who uses trust and openness within an ethos as a catalyst for digression. the authority loves jerks, jerks give power to the authority to take control away from humanity as a whole. whats troubling to me about hating jerks is that, they are proven to be a part of the voice of humanity. dealing with jerks is a slippery slope, because the perspective of who is a jerk is completely subjective. it asks the question who is calling who a jerk?
a jerk i guess is something we may not like, sometimes we may hate them, but it’s something we have to live with.