In Layman's Terms (1-10)

 I - Preface

    There are plenty of facts that we know about our world. I'd start by saying the Earth is like a sphere, maybe not exactly, but fairly close. There are mountains and there are trees, those exist in abundance. The list is endless about the facts of our planets, those we determine through discovery and endless observation and experimentation, and these are the facts we base our world on. For instance, we know gravity exists, and something keeps us held to the ground, so we know that we cannot make floating platforms and try to run on them, because we couldn't. We know by intuition that standing on a tightrope is dangerous, which is why those who dare are called daredevils. Some things come intrinsically to us, others come through years of work.

II - Gradients

    You and I who read this are human. Make no mistake, a robot could very well read it and have no interest in what you and I believe in, but I'd like to believe that it would be one like myself that reads these words. It's a close minded way of thinking, to shun the future, but alas, it's what I believe. It's actually beautiful, if you think about it enough, to map the different levels of human thoughts on a gradient of color, between open and close minded ways. We are so varied that it's impossible that we could all connect on the same things. Yet, people try and try and then they fail. Simply put, there is no way for everyone to relate to the same things. It's why businesses have target markets. It's why a lot of the world is the way it is, divided into factions and borders and all the inbetweeners. We are simply, too diverse to relate to everyone, and it divides us. And perhaps that's for the better.

III - World Thought

    The reality is, I probably don't know you, the you who reads this. And if I do, then the statement still holds true. I can't tell what you pick up, what you miss, and if my message comes across. That I can't tell. I will never be able to tell. There isn't telepathic thought for a reason. If we could know everything as a group, a union, as one, we would be so far beyond anything imaginable that the conglomeration of our minds would transcend humanity and living as a whole. We'd die where we stood, because we could not handle the mass of information that everyone has lived through. We'd be intelligence, but intelligence is the robber of human joy.

IV - Intelligence Dilemma

    To be intelligent, to be smart, is to prove something in your mind. We live off of what we don't know and the emotions that are associated with not knowing. Fear. Surprise. Joy. Countless memories that come from figuring out what we don't know about our world. If we knew it all, if we cumulated all of humanity's thoughts into each and every mind separate, we lose our purpose. If we knew it all, if we had the misfortune of omniscience, we'd be hapless in knowing our own demise, hapless in finding joy with a lack of purpose. To know is to seek the truth, and to seek the truth, frankly, is a pursuit that will lead you to the complexities of our world, and the grim state of everything.

V - Why Learn?

    So then you ask, why learn? If it is a peril pursuit for knowledge, why take apart? Thus, I introduce you to the concept of extremes. To be naive is no better than to be omniscient. For the information you lack, you miss chances. The thing with knowledge is that it isn't just a heap of mind-carriage that wears you out, it inspires opportunity, it brings you the joy just as it brings despair. And to be frank, you can find a reason to make every thing you interact with double-edged, reasonably. So why is naivety just as bad as omniscience, you ask? If you do not know anything, if you lack the fundamental knowledge of being, if you cannot interpret your experiences, then how can you say you are really living? Living is all about the interpretation about the senses, and the fundamental property of naivety, or idiocy, would be the subsequent lack of this interpretation. So to learn, is to exhibit that you indeed have the capability of thought to prove that you are living. For I don't know that the person to my right or left is alive or not until they speak to me, just as they don't know if I've experienced anything beyond the encompasses of my mind until I speak to them.

VI - Connections

     A mind is an echo chamber, one that confirms itself time and time again. One can be convinced of anything they set to be convinced by, forget the facts, forget the logic, the logic in one's mind is all that they need. For instance, the two prior chapters are filled with fallacy, to the minds of other people. I can reasonably argue that, in the capacity of my own mind, that IV and V are both true. Yet, if you ask a student, or a professor, or perhaps anyone of other capacity, you will not receive the same sentiment. So it is to lie in IV and V that I reveal that all along, to be right or wrong is upon the eye's beholder. How can you take this as fact? You don't necessarily have to, the world is an empty sandbox where everything goes. But, at least in my eyes, and maybe yours too, we can formulate theories that work and theories that don't work. It is only the most intensive, and most convincing, intelligent, philosophical mind that can reasonably argue about how the world should and will work.

VII - Risk

    Is it impartial to assume that you are always right? Maybe it seems narcissistic to some, and perhaps it is, but what if you were always right? For one, why be wrong when you can always be right? If that is a choice in your mind to make, then be right at the cost of losing more than you should when you're wrong. What do you lose when you make this decision?

VIII - Common Consensus

    Your life is your lie to tell to yourself. If you want to do something, be something, pretend or not pretend, it is up to you. It is, solely, your ideas, your beliefs. It's why humans can't stand people who are unauthentic to who they are, why liars are looked down upon, because to not be comfortable enough in your own skin, not comfortable enough in your own actions, that's what I believe is and should be shunned. If you do something, own it, and let the punishment or consequence be determined not by your deceit, but by your acceptance of your situation. If we owned our actions just as we own the skin and clothes we wear, if we owned what we said, perhaps society would be more just and righteous than the chaos we descend on. This idea of owning words and actions would especially apply due to the plentiful ways to communicate online that is mostly unregulated. One can say whatever they please under the curtains of anonymity, but how many would own the statements they say? One can only wonder.

IX - At peace.

    One is defined to be at peace in the same way they are defined to be at bliss; in absence of thought, in absence of their senses, to be at peace is akin to being dead in the moment, the evanescent feeling of being weightless. Let yourself be free and in the moment, and you have a good chance of feeling at peace. So do you want to be at peace then? Is it at peace, or is it in absence of mind? The truth of the matter is that we can all find ourselves at peace, but no one actually wants to be at peace for so long. To feel senseless is a bit uncomfortable after all, to most they say. I'd argue that if you were to be at peace, you'd rather do other things. If you think of life, and its karma, as a sinusoidal function, perhaps you are at peace upon falling from the depths of hell.

X - World Peace

    As stated in II, humans are very diverse, and it is our nature of being diverse through the way we were raised, the way we behave, the environment we were in, millions and trillions, probably even duovigintillions of different nuances that make us the way we were. Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Simply put, our whole lives are the culmination of numerous butterfly effects that just so happen to coincide with our life. So let's define world peace. As current events go, we are definitely not at world peace. War, constantly political conflict, all of that can disrupt the balance of world peace. Even a world with no ongoing wars, at least under the definition of peace as the absence of conflict, can never be at world peace. World peace is simply too broad, too diverse, too many different nuances to control. So it should never be accomplished. But there is a correlation between people are world peace, seeing as people are a part of the equation to world peace. The solution, therefore, should be obvious; the solution to world peace is conformity. As an extremist solution, it has absolutely no feasibility in our world and landscape, yet the idea is there. If you make everyone believe the same things, act the same way, and so on, then yes, world peace is obtainable.