It is rather unusual. When I utilize gratuitous bombast, infused with grandiose speech, in everyday, monotonous, civilian vicissitudes, it is the manner I know is most becoming and appropriate for an individual of my intellectual acumen and caliber; it is only of the very few methods by which my constitution can accommodate itself facilely among the less educated.
However, when similar sentiments are emanated from others, an immediate emotional connection is not readily established; it has remained this way since the inception of high school. This negates the old adage, the fundamental principle of all human relationships; that individuals of particular constitutions consort and associate themselves with individuals of similar constitutions. All human relationships are established solely upon similitudes; dissimilitude is not conducive towards the establishment of successful relationships.
I nevertheless a fallacy within this basic principle: when individuals of considerably high intellectual acumen congregate in semi-amicable fashion, it is the breeding ground for sheer and absolute calamity. We may all express similar sentiments of equitableness, and we may all preach harmony and mutual comprehension, but these sentiments only function in a theoretical sense. The words may be the same, but their internal sentiments may differ in their makeup: This is what distinguishes me from the rest.
By nature, competition is our primal mandate, thus we futilely attempt to compensate for our lack of self-worth by focusing upon the insecurities of others. When individuals utilize gratuitous bombast in everyday speech, do they possess the same intentions? To express harmonious sentiments of tranquility and goodwill? Or is it a means of propagating competition?
I am distinctive. My external appearance does not readily equate to my material makeup. My internal method of thinking is not in conjunction with my external appearance. I am facilely compare myself to a textbook, albeit I exist in three dimensions.
Whereas others are merely nothing more than two-dimensional beings, I seek the other realm: that of legitimacy. I maintain my academic integrity solely by exercising this ulterior principle. Although others may appear to be more advanced in their pursuits, the quality of their souls is questionable.
We are all inequivalent.
However, when similar sentiments are emanated from others, an immediate emotional connection is not readily established; it has remained this way since the inception of high school. This negates the old adage, the fundamental principle of all human relationships; that individuals of particular constitutions consort and associate themselves with individuals of similar constitutions. All human relationships are established solely upon similitudes; dissimilitude is not conducive towards the establishment of successful relationships.
I nevertheless a fallacy within this basic principle: when individuals of considerably high intellectual acumen congregate in semi-amicable fashion, it is the breeding ground for sheer and absolute calamity. We may all express similar sentiments of equitableness, and we may all preach harmony and mutual comprehension, but these sentiments only function in a theoretical sense. The words may be the same, but their internal sentiments may differ in their makeup: This is what distinguishes me from the rest.
By nature, competition is our primal mandate, thus we futilely attempt to compensate for our lack of self-worth by focusing upon the insecurities of others. When individuals utilize gratuitous bombast in everyday speech, do they possess the same intentions? To express harmonious sentiments of tranquility and goodwill? Or is it a means of propagating competition?
I am distinctive. My external appearance does not readily equate to my material makeup. My internal method of thinking is not in conjunction with my external appearance. I am facilely compare myself to a textbook, albeit I exist in three dimensions.
Whereas others are merely nothing more than two-dimensional beings, I seek the other realm: that of legitimacy. I maintain my academic integrity solely by exercising this ulterior principle. Although others may appear to be more advanced in their pursuits, the quality of their souls is questionable.
We are all inequivalent.
