Perspective
How am I supposed
To know who I am
When at any given
Point in the day
I am contemplating
My place in the cosmos
As an infinitesimally
Insignificant tiny speck
Of ambulatory wet dust
That is able to ingest
Soft solids and liquids
Process them for energy
While converting O² into CO²
Like a well-oiled machine
To later release and expel
Different soft solids and liquids
Without intent or understanding
Utilizing hinged phalanges
Like a broken crown of a virus
Typing on a keyboard
Under a thin piece of glass
To “communicate” nothing
Into a silent echo chamber
While arguing with myself
About the non-existence
Of a theoretical big bang
Or a magic man in the sky
As eight billion other specks
Of ambulatory wet dust
Are milling about the day
Riding on a spaceship as
A much larger dust particle
Rotating around a heat and light
Self-contained spherical
Constantly exploding star
On the outer edge of a galaxy
That seen from a distance
Looks like a well lit piece of dust
Amongst an infinite number
Of other galaxies, planets
Stars, black holes, and nebula
Meanwhile
Governments around the globe
Are trying to seize or control
Land, water, resources, and inhabitants
To generate non existing
Revenue as capital to further
Their tiny insignificant
Grasp on irrelevant power
Only obtained by those
Willing to sacrifice said power
When each individual has
Divine access to all of
The infinite universal
Never ending power
Looking at the world through a windshield. 
A lovely meditation! Helps us remember what really matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Of ambulatory wet dust” — genius
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought this was related:
Philosopher Bertrand Russell’s “emotive conjugation” – When we describe the same behavior by different terms depending on which side we’re sitting on.
I am firm, but you are obstinate, & he is a pig-headed fool.
I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.
The form of wavering arises from the ways in which ethical language is hostage to its user’s approval:
we call self-confidence “arrogance” when we dislike it;
we call youthfulness “immaturity” when we dislike it;
we call revenge “accountability” when we like it;
we call consequences “punitive” when we dislike them (otherwise we just call them consequences).
Consider the difference between “tribalism,” which always references something we don’t like, and “loyalty,” for the same phenomenon when we approve of it.
Likewise, we applaud someone’s behavior as “cooperative” when we like that she is doing what works for others, and reject her behavior as “conformist” when she’s once again doing what works for others, but this time we dislike it.
Those who risk their lives for a cause they believe in count as “courageous” to those who also believe in the cause, whereas disbelievers are likely to say these people are “fools” or “indoctrinated.”
All depends on our perspective. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good observation.
Without having read too much B. Russell, I find myself in line with his thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of our “alliances” have been about as solid as Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Ought we not have one alliance? Ourselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For sure!!! Existence itself is our real alliance.
LikeLiked by 1 person