Philosophy of Life

I am not better than you because of my religion, color, culture, education, status, wealth
 I am not and neither are you.
 I must accept and so should you that there are differences between us that we were born into.
Why do we focus on these differences? Put your hand in mine and let us accept that our differences should not come in the way of us uniting for the basic human values that we share
 compassion, peacefulness, respect, honesty, innocence, humbleness and sympathy.
 Does a baby born here smile differently from a baby born anywhere in the world? Do they cry any differently?
We may not speak the same language and we may not live the same lifestyle, but a smile I put on my face when I see you puts a smile on your face before you can even think of it. Now, that is powerful. I hope that every sense of arrogance or greed in my heart is deviated to a sense of humility, so the wall of ignorance to the real issues in the world can be shattered by the common rights
that I share with all of my brothers and sisters in humanity.



Today during a break from feeling
I reflected on the style of my prose. Exactly how do I write? I had like many others, the per-verted desire to adopt a system and a norm.
 It's true that I wrote before having the norm and the system, but so did everyone else.

Analysing myself this afternoon, I've discovered that my stylistic system is based on two principles, and in the best tradition of the best classical writers  immediately uphold these two principles as general foundations of all good style  to express what one feels exactly as it is felt clearly if it is clear
 obscurely
if obscure; con-fusedly, if confused - and  to understand that grammar is
an instrument and not a law.

Let's suppose there's a girl with masculine gestures.
An ordinary human creature will say,
'That girl acts like a boy.
' Another ordinary human creature, with some awareness that to speak is to tell will say 'That girl is a boy. Yet another, equally aware of the duties of expression, but inspired by a fondness for concision which is the sensual delight of thought, will say, 'That boy.' I'll say, 'She's a boy', violating one of the basic rules of grammar that pronouns must agree in gender and number with the nouns they refer to. And I'll have spoken correctly
 I'll have spoken absolutely, photo-graphically, outside the norm, the accepted, the insipid. I won't have spoken, I'll have told.

In establishing usage, grammar makes valid and invalid divisions.
 For example, it divides verbs into transitive and intransitive.
But a man who knows how to say what he says must sometimes make a transitive verb intransitive so as to photograph what he feels instead of seeing it in the dark, like the common lot of human ani-mals. If I want to say I exist, I'll say, 'I am.' If I want to say I exist as a separate entity, I'll say, 'I am myself.
But if I want to say I exist as an entity that addresses and acts on itself, exercising the divine function of self-creation, then I'll make to be into a transitive verb. Triumphantly and anti-grammatically supreme, I'll speak of 'am-ming myself'. I'll have stated a philosophy in just two words. Isn't this infinitely preferable to saying nothing in forty sentences? What more can we demand from philosophy and diction?