Route of Attack

We sit up high

There are places I see from my peak that I can not reach nonetheless

In my mind exist a few

The sparsity of the phenomena

To explore

But have no say

What I mean is

There are distinct problems

That are very large

That I guess I could attack

Knew I how

At this point people call me crazy

Maybe it’s not even real

The language is simple

Overly so

But I must communicate clearly with you

I have goals

I have problems

And others have problems with my problems

So it’s pretty antagonistic

In sum

This leads to a lot of discord

And conflict

Inside and out

But for now

I’ll just get my coffee

Does drama reveal the simple truth?

Drama. What’s drama. Drama is like, when things are steep, or serious. Drama is the serious life. It is death, waiting, right there, because everything is dangerous and deadly. It can’t be talked about, because even talking about the thing can trigger it. Drama is the finger ready to fire.

Does drama clarify life? Is the dramatic world simple? Drama is pain. Drama is pain in the chest, drama is pain in the nerves. No one was struck, nothing hit anyone, no objects flew into anyone. But somehow pain. The nervous system is devious for drama. If drama is simple, then pain is simple. Is pain simple? Pain is pretty simple. Pain is pain.

Drama is an absence of buffers. When things are dramatic, there is no room for error, everything is taken dead seriously, everything must be instantaneous, or else. Drama is quantum entanglement plus plus. Drama co-routes through the loop with multithreading into its own state-based process. So, is this simple? Does this sound simple? Depends who you ask. To a computer engineer, this is simple. To a mathematician, the technology of drama is less simple. Then you get into math riddles, which often put someone’s theoretical life at stake, and you wonder if mathematicians too don’t have a sense of drama, or simplicity. And which is which, then?

Drama is an absence of buffers. Drama is no room for humor because everyone is telepathically misinterpreting your thought-statements at the drop of a hat. See above paragraph on error room and instantaneity. I make buffers at work, but they are chemical, and not for people. So I think, drama too is wanting to make better buffers to keep the people lappy-pappy and not on-throat. That’s my side of things. Drama is the self-exploding/imploding binary star system of the impromptu couple harassing each other. Drama is it’s real. Are binary star systems simple? Are couples simple? Is harassment simple?

So drama is extending. Drama aims to please. But this is who it aims to please: Nobody and no one. That people enjoy it on TV is either a lie or an accident.

Does drama help us see the truth in its simplicity? How can drama be truth when it is so made up? Or is this a common delusional belief to protect the faint of psyche? Certainly, things don’t feel simple when they are dramatic. Arguments with people don’t feel simple until the adrenaline kicks in. The plots of drama shows on TV are usually not simple, and the more twisted they are the less simple and more dramatic, usually. The Social Scene has a way of talking about drama, it gives titles to those who associate with it, in a sense fueling it, unaware of its complicity. Certainly, time with the buds is simple. Is it truth? I believe friendship can be truth. Are we dealing in absolutes? Is that a little too dramatic? Or is it truthful? People say the truth hurts, and reality is harsh, so it is possible that drama is true, and simple like the pain it is. Is pain truth? It’s not complicated, but I suppose it can be. But then it’s not simple. So is it dramatic? But drama need not be simple or true; perhaps it only shows us the simplicity in truth. Perhaps these are auxiliary relationships, concepts not to be confounded with one another. Perhaps they are unique entities, intricately entwined but inextricably distinct. Linked, but not combined. In a soup. A salad. A meal. A meal of reality, or irreality. All this sounds more like irreality than reality, as far as I have painted it. But to some irreality is truth, and their reality. So then it is reality, and I am the inaccurate one. Where lies the truth? Within each?

Noun. 1. irreality – the state of being insubstantial or imaginary; not existing objectively or in fact. unreality.

Perhaps one’s reality is another’s irreality. That is the nature of perspective. But when we take a step back and acknowledge that, surprise surprise, individuals are distinct and have their own two eyes, we see that things can be seen (sometimes literally) from a different perspective. The house is only a roof from the top, to the airplane pilot. To the family in the garden, it is strong sturdy walls. But neither party is claiming that the other’s perspective is irreal. The truth is that there exists a house, and the statements are accurate, but are they dramatic? I feel they are not. To say that saying that a house exists, however it is seen, does not carry the tension or emotional burden of drama. It is more empirical and objective than drama. Perhaps there is another level to truth than drama? Or perhaps drama is just the tool to get things started? To start developing the photograph of reality?

I feel that just what drama does is sling accusations from one party to the next. How is this simple? Because it’s just a fight. Fights are simple. Well? Ask anyone who’s ever had a violent one and broken up with their significant other and you’ll know how not simple it can be. But the truth was they weren’t right for each other. Or are there wrenches in the gears? Tomatoes on the stage? Are there finer complications to it that just muck it all up and counfound what could be a clear picture? In any case, drama is implicated, and in that sense I do not believe it paints a simple picture of reality, or irreality, whoever’s is which, as drama will claim that both words are valid. But perhaps drama is just the first step, as alluded to previously, in sorting things out. Drama is the thunderstorm that clears the sky by dumping cleansing water all over the place, leaving a beautiful empty blue sky.

You can tell which side of the argument of the original thesis I am taking:

“Drama helps us see the truth in its simplicity”

-Rahul Gaur

So perhaps at stake is the definition of drama itself, and whether it is considered real or irreal in the first place. Then it turns into a meta-argument. But again with argument. Somehow it seems drama and argument are connected, seeing how frequently they turn up near each other in these lines. Drama, truth, simplicity, argument, reality, irreality. A mathematical network of nodes and edges connected by some invisible algorithm. To paint a picture for people? Or to erase that which exists? And what is the natural state of the universe? Existence or non-existence?

Depends who you ask.


 

This was more an exploration of an idea-statement than a definitive proof or conclusion, but I’m going to have to leave it at that for you. All this talk of drama is starting to wear on me, no matter how much I love analysis. I hope you were able to find some food for thought in these lines.

To be clear, this was a response to a request for a write-up on the topic of drama and the simplicity of truth. See original post which prompted the request at <https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/122502293/posts/3783#comment-1456&gt;.

Thank you.

If there’s one thing that makes me proud of America it’s the Wolfenstein Nazi-hating video game series and Inglorious Basterds.

Now, having said that, if you’re a peaceful or righteous Nazi, or sympathizer, and you have a counterargument, leave it in the comments and I swear I am a compassionate understanding fellow. Might be something like, “Doing more good than bad,” which I understand. It’s not the direction I choose to believe but I am willing to listen to the logic behind anything. That’s the spice of life, isn’t it?