fix eyes and other css errors

3 files changed, 220 insertions, 176 deletions

diff --git a/txt/alive.txt b/txt/alive.txt
index 945e593..02e5983 100644
--- a/txt/alive.txt
+++ b/txt/alive.txt
@@ -1,107 +1,135 @@
-    It all looks so alive. While the large-scale orchestrations and biological systems within and around us are near-perfect,
-    working like clockwork in a manner that has been unchanged for millions of years, the tiny little bits themselves aren't
-    as perfect, which is not only beautiful in a sense, but is also a testimony to why the systems are "perfect". In other words,
-    they work. They work and that's what matters. Such things as the ones I'm about to describe are insignificant on their own,
-    yet those are traits of the most important units that make you.
-    
-    Here I focus on structure in looks and ordering, not structure in it function. The latter is beautifully perfect already, or,
-    well, near-perfect. Again, if it didn't work so well, it wouldn't have lasted, and that's an important point, and why
-    I want to connect "aliveness" with "imperfection."
-	
-    Now you're probably confused by the jumble of all the "perfects" and "imperfects" in the above text, but I will clarify what
-    I was thinking about a while ago. The systems inside us—think of small ones like cellular functions, and big ones like
-    entire organ systems. (I will later touch into a bigger one: organisms themselves and ecosystems.*) I want you to think of
-    a microscope image of cells together. You're thinking of it? Good. It doesn't matter what type of cells they are yet.
-    I want you to focus on the structure. Due to the nature of how things grow, those aren't geometrically perfect. They're lumpy
-    and variant in size, even if subtly. They're in fluid and contain fluid, so their insides move too. When cells split,
-    I doubt that they split wholly "perfectly".
-	
-    (I digress, but maybe they do, since due to how forces work, the mother cell, when squeezing to split, has a tension form in
-    the middle, and as it splits, the two resulting parts should be similar in size or volume to maintain enough tension to
-    successfully split into two, I believe.)
-    
-    That aside, my point still stands: the forming cells aren't perfectly circular, or perfectly any shape, for that matter.
-	
-    To me, their floating, jiggling, and nature are among what makes them look so alive, which they are, of course, but what is
-    "aliveness" to us? How do we look at a cow and identify that it is a living creature? Isn't it its little movements, like
-    its ears', the warmth of its blood, its heartbeat, its little sounds here and there? That's a living being. Now back to the
-    microscopic. Cells that share a function—say, skin cells—are going to work identically. Every cell destined to do
-    something is ideally capable and does it, like being able to recieve neurotransmitters, or have the miniscule bits of
-    chemicals have an effect on it, such that reactions within it can alter its behaviour. In a cell, there are exchanges going
-    on across membranes. There is DNA being copied and packages being transported. If it weren't for the existence of disorders
-    that the body cannot deal with, or errors of varying degrees occuring at a cellular level, then this system is perfectly
-    and flawlessy functional. And I am going to state that regardless of errors that can and do frequently happen inside, because such
-    things are what I percieve as the aliveness of it all. In other words, you are alive because your body is working. Your parts
-    are playing their role, and your body is equipped with the ability to deal with things, expected and unexpected.
-    
-    The final line is crucial, because those who are disabled aren't less (less perfect, less "functional" or less anything).
-    They are still alive and their bodies still work enough for them to be alive, not just people but any living thing
-    that doesn't match the image of a fully perfect, unrealistically ideal member of its species.
-    
-    Let's go back to my main topic, which is imperfection in apperance of things that are alive.
-    
-    What prompted this entire thought process was me thinking about palisade mesophyll, a part of leaf tissue that, when
-    viewed in cross-section, has a regular formation of rectangular palisade cells. I was thinking; we call them rectangular
-    because that is what they look like, and it's perfectly logical to call them that, but they aren't perfect rectangles.
-    They are bumpy and uneven and I doubt they sit together in perfect, even, brick-like alignment.
-    
-    Because of the way those cells form and grow, they won't look like perfect geometrical shapes, yet the function is there,
-    and they can form that orderly structure that they are supposed to form, and work as intended, and I think that's
-    beautiful. The same idea applies to the spongy mesophyll, which are like the opposite of the palisade in a way,
-    consisting of rounder cells that aren't evenly placed. In fact, there's no rule to the pattern besides the idea
-    that the cells should have gaps between them. This doesn't prevent some cells from lumping together, though, as long
-    as the necessary vaccuum exists for the structure to perform its duty normally.
-    
-    This naturally brings us to the next topic: stem cells. Now let's focus on animals again. Stem cells are incredible.
-    You start as a little ball of cells, an embryo, yet your "code" "knows" that cells are supposed to be different in
-    order to perform different functions, and those cells do "latch" onto their designated functions and grow accordingly.
-    Isn't it amazing how cells just "know" that they're supposed to form an ear, and can indeed follow with creating an ear?
-    And I mean, an actual ear, one whose outer structure they don't start with and work around, yet create from essentially and
-    structurally nothing but the genetic definition of an ear! It works the same for everyone. The ears are similar for all
-    humans. They're meant to be, and are programmed to be. How did it come to that, the ability to have an ear that looks like
-    that across a species? Yes, evolution, but *how*? I can think of the details of how, from the parts of an ear, since those
-    parts each have a reason they're there, and we can trace each to what made them a need, but that's a different topic, and
-    you can probably find a decent text on evolution that isn't this ramble.
-    
-    This is also applied to the fact that we have skeletons. It amazes me how an embryo can grow into a baby with organs
-    and a skeleton. Let's take it even further. At some point, life was merely boneless aquatic creatures, yet they eventually
-    became creatures of flesh, blood, and bones.
-    
-    Ears, faces themselves livers, and skeletons, too—none of those are meant to look perfectly even. Your and my liver
-    aren't identical. They're the same organ and they work the same, but they wouldn't look exactly the same, and I don't
-    think they should. Again, it's the result of how tissue forms: imperfectly! The cells aren't all the exact same shape and size,
-    and that combined with them growing over time, forming the organ as they go, relying on a genetic blueprint and not
-    some physical outline to build on, will create a liver, which is liver-like in shape and can do the function of a liver.
-    That's simply what a liver is, and that's what my cells and your cells have successfully gathered into. Our livers do the
-    same thing; we are the same species, and we are both alive. Unless you're reading this in the future, in which case,
-    I was alive at some point, and this is proof that I was. Anyway, moving on.
-    
-    Before I conclude with the biggest point of this passage ("what is aliveness in appearance"), I will explore two
-    last examples: offspring of asexual reproduction in plants. The mental image I had was that of succulents or small
-    plants with many small thick leaves lined up. While each of those leaves are identical to each other, and the plant
-    itself being genetically identical to its parent plant, neither are 100% perfectly identical. The genes are identical,
-    but, yet again, it is how those cells form tissues that have these little imperfections which create the life that we see.
-    
-    The final example is the existence of mathematical patterns in nature. Designs on insects or spirals in the form
-    of some plants are technically perfect, but the aliveness factors into this again and produces little imperfections
-    in the form of bumps or curves or varied-sized parts in lumps. (A reader added wax honeycombs when discussing this
-    and it made me look up images. It's very stunning how perfect they look geometrically, but those too, because of both
-    the nature of the matter they're made of and the fact that they were made by living animals, fall victim to the idea
-    presented here. You'll have too look closely to see it, though.)
-    
-    Perhaps inanimate things can look alive as well. What to you, would make a robot look alive? I am thinking of a robot with
-    many appendages or arms: a spider-like giant robot (something similar to "can't help myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu. I
-    imagine its base to be stationary but it has many arms sticking out, whose movement is anchored to that base). To me,
-    a pure mechanical motion that is identical in each movement, predictable and repetitive isn't alive, but it can move in ways
-    that make it seem alive. After thinking, I noticed what I'm looking for: what makes a motion look alive? I found it to be
-    how it interacts with and is influenced by its surroundings. A robot arm that moves purely based on how it's programmed
-    to move is, well, functioning, but it doesn't feel alive in any way. It's a machine. Yet a machine, say the spider-thing,
-    moves imperfectly, such as a motion that isn't even or predictable (it stumbles around, hesitates, doesn't move its
-    arm for the same distance each time, and so on), can perhaps make me sympathise with a lifeless machine, and even make
-    me see it as a very large metal animal.
-    
-    You were never meant to look perfect. You were meant to be alive. Biologically, your body is perfect enough to keep you alive.
-    
-    *I ended up not mentioning ecosystems here, but briefly, it was about the sheer diversity of life on Earth, and the
-    food chains that dominate the flow of the living part of nature. I don't have anything to say that you can't reach
-    yourself, but the key idea is the systems that simply work.
+It all looks so alive. While the large-scale orchestrations and biological systems
+within and around us are near-perfect, working like clockwork in a manner that has
+been unchanged for millions of years, the tiny little bits themselves aren't as perfect,
+which is not only beautiful in a sense, but is also a testimony to why the systems are
+"perfect". In other words, they work. They work and that's what matters. Such things as
+the ones I'm about to describe are insignificant on their own, yet those are traits of
+the most important units that make you.
+
+Here I focus on structure in looks and ordering, not structure in it function.
+The latter is beautifully perfect already, or, well, near-perfect. Again, if it didn't
+work so well, it wouldn't have lasted, and that's an important point, and why I want to
+connect "aliveness" with "imperfection."
+
+Now you're probably confused by the jumble of all the "perfects" and "imperfects" in the
+above text, but I will clarify what I was thinking about a while ago. The systems inside
+us—think of small ones like cellular functions, and big ones like entire organ systems.
+(I will later touch into a bigger one: organisms themselves and ecosystems.*) I want you
+to think of a microscope image of cells together. You're thinking of it? Good. It doesn't
+matter what type of cells they are yet. I want you to focus on the structure. Due to the
+nature of how things grow, those aren't geometrically perfect. They're lumpy and variant
+in size, even if subtly. They're in fluid and contain fluid, so their insides move too.
+When cells split, I doubt that they split wholly "perfectly".
+
+(I digress, but maybe they do, since due to how forces work, the mother cell, when
+squeezing to split, has a tension form in the middle, and as it splits, the two resulting
+parts should be similar in size or volume to maintain enough tension to successfully split
+into two, I believe.)
+
+That aside, my point still stands: the forming cells aren't perfectly circular, or perfectly
+any shape, for that matter.
+
+To me, their floating, jiggling, and nature are among what makes them look so alive, which
+they are, of course, but what is "aliveness" to us? How do we look at a cow and identify
+that it is a living creature? Isn't it its little movements, like its ears', the warmth of
+its blood, its heartbeat, its little sounds here and there? That's a living being. Now back
+to the microscopic. Cells that share a function—say, skin cells—are going to work identically.
+Every cell destined to do something is ideally capable and does it, like being able to
+recieve neurotransmitters, or have the miniscule bits of chemicals have an effect on it,
+such that reactions within it can alter its behaviour. In a cell, there are exchanges going
+on across membranes. There is DNA being copied and packages being transported. If it weren't
+for the existence of disorders that the body cannot deal with, or errors of varying degrees
+occuring at a cellular level, then this system is perfectly and flawlessy functional. And I
+am going to state that regardless of errors that can and do frequently happen inside, because
+such things are what I percieve as the aliveness of it all. In other words, you are alive
+because your body is working. Your parts are playing their role, and your body is equipped
+with the ability to deal with things, expected and unexpected.
+
+The final line is crucial, because those who are disabled aren't less (less perfect,
+less "functional" or less anything). They are still alive and their bodies still work
+enough for them to be alive, not just people but any living thing that doesn't match the
+image of a fully perfect, unrealistically ideal member of its species.
+
+Let's go back to my main topic, which is imperfection in apperance of things that are alive.
+
+What prompted this entire thought process was me thinking about palisade mesophyll, a part
+of leaf tissue that, when viewed in cross-section, has a regular formation of rectangular
+palisade cells. I was thinking; we call them rectangular because that is what they look like,
+and it's perfectly logical to call them that, but they aren't perfect rectangles.
+They are bumpy and uneven and I doubt they sit together in perfect, even, brick-like alignment.
+
+Because of the way those cells form and grow, they won't look like perfect geometrical shapes,
+yet the function is there, and they can form that orderly structure that they are supposed to
+form, and work as intended, and I think that's beautiful. The same idea applies to the spongy
+mesophyll, which are like the opposite of the palisade in a way, consisting of rounder cells
+that aren't evenly placed. In fact, there's no rule to the pattern besides the idea that the
+cells should have gaps between them. This doesn't prevent some cells from lumping together,
+though, as long as the necessary vaccuum exists for the structure to perform its duty normally.
+
+This naturally brings us to the next topic: stem cells. Now let's focus on animals again.
+Stem cells are incredible. You start as a little ball of cells, an embryo, yet your "code"
+"knows" that cells are supposed to be different in order to perform different functions, and
+those cells do "latch" onto their designated functions and grow accordingly. Isn't it amazing
+how cells just "know" that they're supposed to form an ear, and can indeed follow with creating
+an ear? And I mean, an actual ear, one whose outer structure they don't start with and work
+around, yet create from essentially and structurally nothing but the genetic definition of an
+ear! It works the same for everyone. The ears are similar for all humans. They're meant to be,
+and are programmed to be. How did it come to that, the ability to have an ear that looks like
+that across a species? Yes, evolution, but *how*? I can think of the details of how, from the
+parts of an ear, since those parts each have a reason they're there, and we can trace each to
+what made them a need, but that's a different topic, and you can probably find a decent text
+on evolution that isn't this ramble.
+
+This is also applied to the fact that we have skeletons. It amazes me how an embryo can grow
+into a baby with organs and a skeleton. Let's take it even further. At some point, life was
+merely boneless aquatic creatures, yet they eventually became creatures of flesh, blood, and bones.
+
+Ears, faces themselves livers, and skeletons, too—none of those are meant to look perfectly
+even. Your and my liver aren't identical. They're the same organ and they work the same, but
+they wouldn't look exactly the same, and I don't think they should. Again, it's the result of
+how tissue forms: imperfectly! The cells aren't all the exact same shape and size, and that
+combined with them growing over time, forming the organ as they go, relying on a genetic
+blueprint and not some physical outline to build on, will create a liver, which is liver-like
+in shape and can do the function of a liver. That's simply what a liver is, and that's what
+my cells and your cells have successfully gathered into. Our livers do the same thing; we are
+the same species, and we are both alive. Unless you're reading this in the future, in which case,
+I was alive at some point, and this is proof that I was. Anyway, moving on.
+
+Before I conclude with the biggest point of this passage ("what is aliveness in appearance"),
+I will explore two last examples: offspring of asexual reproduction in plants. The mental
+image I had was that of succulents or small plants with many small thick leaves lined up.
+While each of those leaves are identical to each other, and the plant itself being
+genetically identical to its parent plant, neither are 100% perfectly identical. The genes
+are identical, but, yet again, it is how those cells form tissues that have these little
+imperfections which create the life that we see.
+
+The final example is the existence of mathematical patterns in nature. Designs on insects
+or spirals in the form of some plants are technically perfect, but the aliveness factors
+into this again and produces little imperfections in the form of bumps or curves or
+varied-sized parts in lumps. (A reader added wax honeycombs when discussing this and it made
+me look up images. It's very stunning how perfect they look geometrically, but those too,
+because of both the nature of the matter they're made of and the fact that they were made by
+living animals, fall victim to the idea presented here. You'll have too look closely to see
+it, though.)
+
+Perhaps inanimate things can look alive as well. What to you, would make a robot look alive?
+I am thinking of a robot with many appendages or arms: a spider-like giant robot (something
+similar to "can't help myself" by Sun Yuan & Peng Yu. I imagine its base to be stationary
+but it has many arms sticking out, whose movement is anchored to that base). To me, a pure
+mechanical motion that is identical in each movement, predictable and repetitive isn't alive,
+but it can move in ways that make it seem alive. After thinking, I noticed what I'm looking
+for: what makes a motion look alive? I found it to be how it interacts with and is influenced
+by its surroundings. A robot arm that moves purely based on how it's programmed to move is,
+well, functioning, but it doesn't feel alive in any way. It's a machine. Yet a machine, say
+the spider-thing, moves imperfectly, such as a motion that isn't even or predictable
+(it stumbles around, hesitates, doesn't move its arm for the same distance each time, and
+so on), can perhaps make me sympathise with a lifeless machine, and even make me see it as
+a very large metal animal.
+
+You were never meant to look perfect. You were meant to be alive. Biologically, your body
+is perfect enough to keep you alive.
+
+*I ended up not mentioning ecosystems here, but briefly, it was about the sheer diversity
+of life on Earth, and the food chains that dominate the flow of the living part of nature.
+I don't have anything to say that you can't reach yourself, but the key idea is the systems
+that simply work.
diff --git a/txt/birth.txt b/txt/birth.txt
index 7d6bed5..190fb79 100644
--- a/txt/birth.txt
+++ b/txt/birth.txt
@@ -1,25 +1,27 @@
-    I will use this page to express whatever I want to, especially thoughts I have a lot and want to discuss,
-    given that nobody in my life is down to ever having a discussion. I want to keep it minimal as the words
-    are more important than the look, but with a bit of CSS, I wanted it to look comfortable to read. This
-    page was ironically inspired by the No-CSS club. I originally wanted to write pure pages for my thoughts,
-    with zero styling. I already had the habit of storing thoughts in plaintext files, and when I saw its
-    potentional in websites, I wanted to do the same. However, when I created this file and was greeted by
-    Neocities' placeholder code, I realized that I liked my default style (mute background plus page margins).
-    I avoided JavaScript as well, as I deem it to be excessive.
-    
-    As for my audience, I know who they are. It's people who think similarly to me, or otherwise anyone who
-    thinks too deeply about everything. I consider it a curse of some sorts but we'll see where it takes me.
-    
-    The internet is wide, so not everyone who comes across this will understand me, and if they do, they could
-    disagree. Thing is, I'd like that. I appreciate disagreements as they get me out of my head. I love getting
-    insight into how others think if it differs from my own thinking. I'm sick of living inside of my head, so
-    this is a great outlet. Ideas exist to be shared in a way, whether directly or through application and
-    implementation, or however you want to put it. Like I've said before, my online existence isn't worth more
-    or less than anyone else's, and my opinions aren't anything special, but I think and I need to put use into
-    these thoughts. Thinking alone won't change a thing in my life, but it sure makes the days more eventful
-    than they really are. My life wouldn't have looked the same if it weren't for my understanding of it being
-    the way it is. I've seen people whose lenses I want to share, people who, when you look through their eyes,
-    refresh my vision. For some of them, I'd love to see life the way they do, but only for a little while, as
-    changing something so big about myelf won't make me the *me* I know anymore.
-    
-    Enjoy.
\ No newline at end of file
+I will use this page to express whatever I want to, especially thoughts I have a lot and want to
+discuss, given that nobody in my life is down to ever having a discussion. I want to keep it minimal
+as the words are more important than the look, but with a bit of CSS, I wanted it to look comfortable 
+to read. This page was ironically inspired by the No-CSS club. I originally wanted to write pure pages
+for my thoughts, with zero styling. I already had the habit of storing thoughts in plaintext files, 
+and when I saw its potentional in websites, I wanted to do the same. However, when I created this
+file and was greeted by Neocities' placeholder code, I realized that I liked my default style (mute
+background plus page margins). I avoided JavaScript as well, as I deem it to be excessive.
+
+As for my audience, I know who they are. It's people who think similarly to me, or otherwise anyone
+who thinks too deeply about everything. I consider it a curse of some sorts but we'll see where it
+takes me.
+
+The internet is wide, so not everyone who comes across this will understand me, and if they do,
+they could disagree. Thing is, I'd like that. I appreciate disagreements as they get me out of my
+head. I love getting insight into how others think if it differs from my own thinking. I'm sick of
+living inside of my head, so this is a great outlet. Ideas exist to be shared in a way, whether
+directly or through application and implementation, or however you want to put it. Like I've said
+before, my online existence isn't worth more or less than anyone else's, and my opinions aren't
+anything special, but I think and I need to put use into these thoughts. Thinking alone won't change
+a thing in my life, but it sure makes the days more eventful than they really are. My life wouldn't
+have looked the same if it weren't for my understanding of it being the way it is. I've seen people
+whose lenses I want to share, people who, when you look through their eyes, refresh my vision. For
+some of them, I'd love to see life the way they do, but only for a little while, as changing
+something so big about myelf won't make me the *me* I know anymore.
+
+Enjoy.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/txt/isolation.txt b/txt/isolation.txt
index 781c5f5..9fea6ba 100644
--- a/txt/isolation.txt
+++ b/txt/isolation.txt
@@ -1,44 +1,58 @@
-    We are not immune to influence. We are surrounded by all kinds of opinions, and a human, when deciding how they feel
-    or think about something, will be influenced by those around them. In addition, all creative works are sourced from around
-    the creator. Even art that is born from within us has been inspired by something or somebody that we have seen before. (Yes,
-    even if the art was inspired by a hallucination, other mind tricks, or geometric shapes.) We cannot truly conjure something
-    that our brain has never had any contact with. Our imagination is limited to what we have visual input for. Creativity exists
-    when we can create something new out of our past knowledge. We can split and stick parts together and create something never
-    seen before, but I digress. I am saying that one cannot be 100% original. This is not to discredit any artists, of course.
-    In fact, what I'm talking about isn't a negative thing at all. Instead, it's somewhat unifying.
-    
-    Back to opinions. We may not all consciously look around and see what others are thinking before declaring what we think,
-    even though it has become the norm to be considerate in some way or another to our surroundings. My point here is that we 
-    all want to conform to those with whom we feel that we belong. Don't deny it. Even if you are willing to go against the
-    grain in every aspect of your life, you are still trying to conform to something, and that something could be your own mental
-    image. However, in most cases, we want to belong with others. We feel that we must not think or feel in a way that defies or
-    contradicts those with whom we want to share a bond. That bond does not always exist either. It could be an invisible tie
-    that none of us acknowledge, which appears in cases where our only similarity is intellectual. Those who think the same
-    can be grouped together.
-    
-    Nobody likes to be isolated. In ancient times, isolation from a tribe meant death. That is the proposed origin of why
-    loneliness is painful. How does this apply in our times? We may want to participate in the same activities that people we
-    like participate in. We may want to incorporate into our creative works things that will draw in those similar to us, or
-    those with whom we want to be grouped or part of. Actually, there is a fallacy in what I said, because, as you know, many
-    artists do not create with a label in mind. They do not create in order to be similar to another artist or to fit a title,
-    style, or genre, as it defeats the self-expression and individuality that comes with creative human expression. However,
-    for things as general as style or genre, one cannot be truly one of a kind. There will always be something similar, even
-    if distantly, or something that has been a source of inspiration. That is not a bad thing. There could be two poets who
-    write a similar poem, yet they don't know that the other nor their poem exists. Things like that can happen, as there is
-    only so much originality that a human being could produce.
-    
-    There is another distinction in this topic. There are those who do not want to be associated with any existing principle
-    or group, those who want to be completely solitary in their individualism. Those people could be hermits, recluses, or
-    otherwise anyone who wants to separate themselves as much as possible from society and/or to actively defy and fight the
-    norms placed by it. Like most other things in the world, this can be good and bad. It's good to think for yourself and 
-    to try to eliminate as much influence as possible from your decision-making, but it's only natural to be influenced in some
-    way. While one is capable of making a perfectly neutral and logical decision, part of what makes us human is our reasoning.
-    We can decide what *we* find best. And that itself will be influenced by our past experiences, and in a lot of cases, our
-    feelings. Thoughts and feelings in decision-making will be discussed in "Heart and Mind" and not here.
-    
-    The bottom line is that human beings do not want to be isolated or ostracized. We prefer decisions and opinions that will
-    draw us closer to and not further apart from our people. However, I want to declare that you don't have to. You don't have
-    to conform. You aren't a slave to others' opinions, so who cares whether or not you achieve the similarity to others, if
-    you seek it? If you don't, then that's good. In this day and age, it is always better to draw your own conclusions and
-    opinions. People you like aren't necessarily "more correct", so think for yourself before you let an influence choose your
-    thoughts and feelings for you. This can apply to anything, big and small.
\ No newline at end of file
+We are not immune to influence. We are surrounded by all kinds of opinions, and a human,
+when deciding how they feel or think about something, will be influenced by those around
+them. In addition, all creative works are sourced from around the creator. Even art that
+is born from within us has been inspired by something or somebody that we have seen before.
+(Yes, even if the art was inspired by a hallucination, other mind tricks, or geometric
+shapes.) We cannot truly conjure something that our brain has never had any contact with.
+Our imagination is limited to what we have visual input for. Creativity exists when we can
+create something new out of our past knowledge. We can split and stick parts together and
+create something never seen before, but I digress. I am saying that one cannot be 100%
+original. This is not to discredit any artists, of course. In fact, what I'm talking about
+isn't a negative thing at all. Instead, it's somewhat unifying.
+
+Back to opinions. We may not all consciously look around and see what others are thinking
+before declaring what we think, even though it has become the norm to be considerate in
+some way or another to our surroundings. My point here is that we  all want to conform to
+those with whom we feel that we belong. Don't deny it. Even if you are willing to go against
+the grain in every aspect of your life, you are still trying to conform to something, and
+that something could be your own mental image. However, in most cases, we want to belong
+with others. We feel that we must not think or feel in a way that defies or contradicts
+those with whom we want to share a bond. That bond does not always exist either. It could
+be an invisible tie that none of us acknowledge, which appears in cases where our only
+similarity is intellectual. Those who think the same can be grouped together.
+
+Nobody likes to be isolated. In ancient times, isolation from a tribe meant death. That
+is the proposed origin of why loneliness is painful. How does this apply in our times?
+We may want to participate in the same activities that people we like participate in. We
+may want to incorporate into our creative works things that will draw in those similar to
+us, or those with whom we want to be grouped or part of. Actually, there is a fallacy in
+what I said, because, as you know, many artists do not create with a label in mind. They
+do not create in order to be similar to another artist or to fit a title, style, or genre,
+as it defeats the self-expression and individuality that comes with creative human
+expression. However, for things as general as style or genre, one cannot be truly one of
+a kind. There will always be something similar, even if distantly, or something that has
+been a source of inspiration. That is not a bad thing. There could be two poets who write
+a similar poem, yet they don't know that the other nor their poem exists. Things like that
+can happen, as there is only so much originality that a human being could produce.
+
+There is another distinction in this topic. There are those who do not want to be
+associated with any existing principle or group, those who want to be completely
+solitary in their individualism. Those people could be hermits, recluses, or otherwise
+anyone who wants to separate themselves as much as possible from society and/or to
+actively defy and fight the norms placed by it. Like most other things in the world,
+this can be good and bad. It's good to think for yourself and to try to eliminate as
+much influence as possible from your decision-making, but it's only natural to be
+influenced in some way. While one is capable of making a perfectly neutral and logical
+decision, part of what makes us human is our reasoning. We can decide what *we* find best.
+And that itself will be influenced by our past experiences, and in a lot of cases, our
+feelings. Thoughts and feelings in decision-making will be discussed in "Heart and Mind"
+and not here.
+
+The bottom line is that human beings do not want to be isolated or ostracized. We prefer
+decisions and opinions that will draw us closer to and not further apart from our people.
+However, I want to declare that you don't have to. You don't have to conform. You aren't
+a slave to others' opinions, so who cares whether or not you achieve the similarity to
+others, if you seek it? If you don't, then that's good. In this day and age, it is always
+better to draw your own conclusions and opinions. People you like aren't necessarily "more
+correct", so think for yourself before you let an influence choose your thoughts and feelings
+for you. This can apply to anything, big and small.
\ No newline at end of file