Leapdragon 2016 - Aron Hsiao Was Here

blah blah blah blah  §

The one thing that Americans need to learn, the one thing that they least understand and refuse culturally to admit — is that actions have consequences. Americans cling to this new age bullshit that unlinks materiality from the causal nexus somehow.

The way most Americans see the world anymore, things don’t happen as the result of interactions in the real world, things happen because you believe (or don’t) that they’ll happen, or because you want (or don’t) them to happen.

It’s utter nonsense, utter rectile smelly-ass shit, and it will destroy not only a hundred million relationships, but also the entirety of the western world. The causal nexus is real, children. If you light a match and set fire to your house, it will burn, no matter how much you believe it won’t. If you betray a friend, they will hate you, no matter how much you’re sure they shouldn’t.

More to the point, about this word, “should.” It’s the most insidious word in the English tongue. The word begins from a position of utter denial. Things only “should” (or shouldn’t) be when we refuse to acknowledge what actually is (or isn’t).

When someone uses the term “should” what they are really doing is:

1. Denying/refusing to admit what is actually the case, and
2. Declaring their own personal desires, i.e. what they wish would happen or was true instead

The problem is that due to the new age shit that pervades American culture today, they immediately proceed from #2 to:

3. Knowing that because they wish it, and they’ve said it, it will (or, ahem, *should*) now come true

And then they get all broken up and frustrated when #3 fails to come to pass, and they try to blame someone for it, or hold it against someone, or attribute it to intentionality on the part of some party, i.e. because it is intention and not materiality that drives consequences, any failure to achieve desired results must not be based on action (or lack thereof) or decisions inappropriately made, but rather on some competing will that is willing the precise opposite.

Thus, if significant other A is unfaithful to significant other B, and B departs for greener pastures, A sees it not as an instance of poor decision-making leading to undesired consequences, but rahter as B willing a split or other negative consequences in greater measure than A wills continued togetherness.

In short, everyone begins to take everyone personally, and everyone denies the relative autonomy of everyone else, not to mention the universal subservience to the simple laws of physics, i.e. if you didn’t want the Iraq war to go badly but it did anyway, it’s not due to poor decision making, poor planning, or a poor conceptual framework to begin with, it’s because people that suck didn’t will us to victory.

Intentionality is indeed very powerful, but this power does not have a linear corollation to the imagery through which it is manifest. Instead, it is dialogical and often opposite.

To put it another way, if you spend all afternoon willing an egg to crack with your utmost concentration, you will likely fail to make it crack (try it if you don’t believe me) no matter how much you believe or how much you medidate beforehand, meaning that the directness of your intentionality was utterly worthless, but you will likely succeed in wasting an afternoon, rotting one egg by leaving it out of the fridge and on the counter while you stare at it, and possibly also in dying after you give yourself an annurism by concentrating so hard.

The material consequences, as always, were real. They just weren’t tied to human desire or to some new age shite “belief” in the will to power.