Of the dangers and preservation of THE WITHIN

without exception, every word, whisper, shout or whistle, and any other act come from THE WITHIN.

It is a mysterious , opaque place of which nothing is known and many dangers abound.

Consequently every echo of that distant place is of value, yet it may be hurtful, disgusting and ugly.

we are capable of expressing disagreeable things- disagreeable to ourselves and others, and yet they are still, a product of transition from the internal obscurity of that misty land to the light of day.

Even if it is a lie , or a thought antithetical to our being, yet we are able to express it and do so, and by doing so, express something of THE WITHIN.

it is necessary to be able to bring those echos outward. communication of experiences and queries, and the expression of emotions and thoughts is beneficial.

Consider how advantageous it is to ask others an innocent question: "can peanut butter be used instead of butter for frying an egg on a pan?" receiving an answer could save a great deal of effort and help avoid an awful smell, should one try things for themselves. Yet what was gleamed of the within from the question? An intention to cook eggs? An interest in the use of peanut butter or other peanut-related products? A sense of ennui , or merely a boredom of the way eggs are made? What of the advice given? Was it made with great malice, “egging” the curious on, or was it an honest appraisal of the inevitable doom?

in as such we can imagine, that every expression by one person may contain some benefit to another, even if they are separated by time and space. And even if the use made, was different from the intended outcome.

For most, the caveman's drawing on the walls, was  mostly bad. It was uninteresting , childish amateurish art. it sucked. yet it helps those who care to learn of the imbecility of those distant times and the obvious long way to be traversed go,  as far as technique was concerned , before getting a commission for a portrait, or anything worthy of public display.

Such are expressions. Useful to some, useless to others.

Now we come to the part where you may ask, dear reader, what if the expression of one causes injury to another? What if the distasteful expression passes a point where it is no longer unwholesome, but injurious to certain party.

What if a man goes to the park on a nice, breezy day with a new design for a kite. he constructs the kite and it catches the wind magnificently. yet people are soon enraged that the kite bears the image and details of a  vagina? some would complain that though the aerodynamic features demonstrated were quite impressive, it would be obscene to expose children who are also in attendance, to such a sight, not to mention those of a strong conservative values, who may even be experiencing physical discomfort, were they to look up! they shall point out the use of colors in the depiction of pubic hairs and the labia to be particularly offensive, even though the the central  slit-like opening allows for better control during turbulence and an over superb handling in sudden directional changes of the wind.

Should the venal kite-builder be asked to curtail his long-planned excursion, and retreat to a secluded spot, where his work shall offend none?

What if he can find no breezy clearings that are also unoccupied by those who can potentially be hurt?

Must he sacrifice the giant leap in aerodynamic design that this kite represents , only to accommodate the other?

Much offense can be given, out of malice or accident.

Yet the REACTION to this is a greater question. Should others take offense? Should steps taken to prevent such unhappy product from ever emerging from THE WITHIN?

What effect would restraint have upon the THE WITHIN? Would an individual best resort to his own sense of decency, aesthetics, and his awareness of the possible effect it might have upon others when choosing a means of expression or details entailed?

Or should the offender be persecuted for the damages he had caused?

What condition would be THE WITHIN , if such outward restrictions were made apparent?

In truth, if ever there was a desire to act with malice, that desire could be fulfilled with ease. If a word be outlawed, a new word shall stand its place. If speaker be silenced, another shall rise up. The more more restrictive the outer world becomes, the more creative or violent the output that would be produced. Because THE WITHIN can tolerate much, yet it can not be dammed or damned.

And so, to the benefit of all, we must live in a world where THE WITHIN is cultivated to sympathy, yet seldom restrained with any outward device.

Such manifestations of  freedom may undoubtedly result in much that is wrong and bad. Yet THE WITHIN is also resilient and should be able to absorb or deflect those expressions that it encounters, yet grow strong and unhurt by them.

Interference causes greater harm in its use AND ABUSE, than the benefit it brings. yet there are times, where the expression of THE WITHIN may bring danger to others. while growing within an environment of freedom entails developing some detachment from hurtful expressions, there are still risks that can be cause by others. fraudulent misdirection, abusive or predatory exploitation, and of course the instigation of physical violence by enticement, are examples of such danger. no amount of acquired emotional resilience could protect an individual from physical harm, and no degree of caution could unveil the true intentions of others. it is therefore at times, needful for humans, as a collective to forgo some degree of this freedom to reveal the within, when it can be demonstrated that the intention of an individual was not merely to express THE WITHIN, but to willfully cause a harm that is so great, that it could not be reasonably overcome personally.

we might look at all restriction and all enforcement as "a thing protecting its own". a protection from and prosecution of murder is meant to preserve life. a limit to speed on the road is meant to allow for all in transit to reach their destination.

in that case the rare occasion where the expression of THE WITHIN must be restricted, in order that THE WITHIN itself is preserved. if in expression, one causes another to be diminished , hurt or made unable to express any longer THE WITHIN, it is then justifiable to restrict that expression of that individual. the more damaging the expression made by one and suffered by the many, the more of THE WITHIN must be protected.

though this article could be viewed as sheer insanity, as indeed it very likely is, know that it, too was a product of THE WITHIN. despite the inherent obfuscation and tendency to depravity of the author, it is not written with any intent to cause harm, distress or otherwise provoke that restrictive instrument of enforcement, neither was it intended to reduce THE WITHIN or diminish its expression in others.