Sunday, 10 May 2015

Beyond the Box

“Now that’s thinking outside the box.” – He said.
“I don’t just think outside the box, I was born outside the box!” – Part of a conversation I had with a sales manager a couple of years ago. 

Many a time I come across that worldly and over-used expression, “thinking outside the box” which is something quite an akin condition of the mind of an Aspie as well as those who think in inventive terms, the original thinker per se. When growing up and remaining undiagnosed for some 35 years with that typical feeling of being somewhat outcast or alien toward those who surrounded me my inventiveness and original thinking remained throughout as it does today.

However, I often considered that many who utilise the sentence, “he/she/it thinks outside the box” do so without any form of actual analysis toward the environment of mind that actually is, outside the box. When we consider ‘environment’ one is often subjected to pictures or thoughts’ processes of the physicality as opposed to the more applicable consideration toward an eternal vastness of thought and thought origin, the investigation original thinking originates from.

For me, thinking outside the box is essentially a thought construct seeding liberty. Liberty to me is to locate an independent path or paths outside of common societal mindsets indigenous to ones’ own perspective of freedom whilst remaining comparable to other’s self created entrapments and knowing with evidence that you are not like them. Freedom from internal boxed constraints or more often polluting factors such as, societal mindsets engineered by the vacuous existence that is herd mentality, oh yes, the herd mentalist, the plodding sentient humanoid so easily led by media, bought by politicians and subjected to by corporations (because the product must be bought, right?). It’s little wonder that original thinkers are reviled by the schoolyard bullies, feared by employers and ignored by politicians. Makes one wonder as to why this is? Doesn’t it? Or can you?

Always lead by example is what I lend toward being the best methodology of teaching, I wish to quash societal mindsets as these to me these are prison bars of fertility of the soil that exists in the great expanse beyond the box.  

Trial By Media

The face-palm inducing arguments I have had with persons who obtain their evidence from the suggestion of the newspaper / “news” broadcast astounds me to the intensity of their beliefs born of nothing more than sensualist type and literal band wagon magnetism.
For instance, say I come across a friend who introduces me to their son and I greet them by...
“Hey rockstar!!” Excitedly and ruffle his hair then a high five. Seems innocent enough,

Now the, err, “news” version.

“Whilst roaring at him calling him names, VisionGhost accosted a child and placed his hand upon the child’s person.”

Because of course, that’s what happened right? I have observed many who would read the latter and immediately have a drop down menu to conjure up all sorts of ideas yet only pertaining to one, that I am violent toward children as so many always choose the most extreme of all the options when in fact there exists only the one, the one the “news” wants you to believe.

I see it happened when say, a male celebrity is reported in the “news” by the story stating,

“Police were summoned to a call of a domestic disturbance by male celebrity’s wife!”
Immediately - male celebrity is a wife beating scumbag, he’s the enemy, online abuse ensues, facebook groups setup, calls for male celebrity’s instant removal from all sponsorship and so and so on and so on, turns out it was the wife who called because she was locked out and male celebrity who was watching a horror movie has the TV turned up too loud and didn’t even know she was there who her husband was being attacked.


Here in Ireland we are facing a referendum, and the question is, should the electorate allow same sex couples to marry? Vote Yes or No.

I got asked, which way am I going to vote and my reply was simple, I’m abstaining from voting.

Why? Because I simply cannot apply enforcement of a notion one way or the other toward something in which I have absolutely no belief in, none whatsoever. Marriage to me is an utter farce; some maybe offended by that but let’s examine why I think this way.
Remember I mentioned liberty? Well here’s a thing, I believe in seeking liberty and freedom of the one in as much a capacity as humanly and socially as well as legally available, which you have to admit is becoming increasingly harder and harder to locate in this modern era; there exists approximately 7.01 billion humans on Earth, so if I was for pure argument sakes assume that an exact 50% split of them are female (I am heterosexual) is available for a potential relationship, obviously excluding those who are lesbian, not of legal age, not attracted to me or vice versa, other mitigating circumstances, so on and so forth, I could very well have foundered the potential for human coupling with millions and millions of females.

Now, going further, I believe in consensual non-monogamy, which in short means, allowing consent for your significant other to engage in sexual relationship with other people, be it regular contact or simply one night stands, etc.  Why? because we as a species are actually designed this way, males are meant to (spread the wild oats) inseminate as many females as possible, so, being that we have become the most advanced sexualised species on Earth this opens up a much wider playing field for, you guessed it? The ultimate freeform of human pleasure, yes sex, the greatest method to burn calories, enhance your immune system, create closeness and relieve stress, relieve depression, enhance confidence, oh the list of benefits goes on and on.

Furthermore, divorce, the most expensive outlay of any couple’s union is foundered in its collapse (which you must admit is somewhat ironic), keeping divorce lawyers rich and the courts with something to do not to mention the incredible emotional hardship, stress, maintenance payments, who gets the kids, who gets the house, blah. blah, blah.

Look, it is not my intention to doom all marriages to hell but quite frankly, when I examine the bigger picture I think with all the above considered, I shall remain as I am, a single man in a loving long term relationship who is free as is my partner to consent to the practice of mating without insemination for the sheer pleasure of it as we are designed to do without the contract.

The deeper reason I think this way is because, no one, repeat, no one to me is an object. Just because I used the word “relationship” does that somehow mean there is this invisible contract of ownership that somehow I can control what one does with her body of her own free will. It’s none of my damn business quite frankly. Yes I admit, having a sexual relationship with another outside his/her partnership born out of deception is indeed cheating, having consented sex with another which is in turn consented to happened by all parties is the jackpot.


This blog is becoming a bit longer than I had intended so I shall end on this last subject.

I was laying awake in bed a few weeks back unable to sleep and full of thoughts (yes you can imagine I do that quite a lot) when the idea of human assisted suicide entered into my mind and after much consideration a very clear and present observation of a stupidity occurred to me.

Personally I would support euthanasia in certain circumstances, in relation to quality of life being ultimately diminished to near nothingness as well as an incurable & terminal condition causing prolonged suffering until the inevitable end.

But what never ceases to bemuse me is how the courts, medical practice and those who oppose euthanasia are seemingly blind to the occurring knock on affect of their decision.

So patient A is dying, their condition is incurable they awake to a horrible daily cycle of suffering, horrific indignance and of course, an unbearable amount of pain despite the morphine drip. Currently we would allow these poor souls to go on meaninglessly suffering day after day, watch them waste away and eventually mortality thus takes them.

So here’s the thought, in that time, a country’s health system has spent perhaps, thousands and thousands on their “treatment” to prolong this pointless escapade when simultaneously Patient B has occurred a condition in which a cure has been found and a therapy is workable to either treat or rid completely and return Patient B to pain free normality but is turned away to die and why? Because the treatment sought is too expensive; now I don’t about you, but that picture is an embellishment of insanity.

Summarising, keep terminally ill patients alive until inevitable death at the cost of millions yet turn away curable patients because their treatment is too expensive. Please tell me I am not the only one that can see what is most seriously wrong with that picture?

Pharmaceutical industries as they say, don’t create cures, they create customers, makes one wonder.

Thank you for reading.



  1. so interesting, your written skill is great and i must comment your great ideas shared, thanks Earn Online