As he goes about his routine, making sure as he says everyone around hears his plight, it is clear that the issues he raises are more pervasive than he himself makes them seem to be, his listeners’ concurrence on which, at all times, deafening.
Yet, his reputation for being obstinate makes some shudder, they say. Known since high school to tackle issues he claims define the future, he says he always positions himself in between now and then, which according to him, indicates a presence to assert close enough to the truth he at once disdains as in fact, fiction at every point in time.
Letters apart, service long recognized as distinctive in not just nature but scope ignored, few contend the relevance in what in general seems twisted out of form yet rendered innately pristine, his stated mission to enunciate for exploration what if any truth is indeed reason not to stop and perhaps reverse the truth inherent in the twist.
He tells them his story, its conferment of legitimacy to those of others, albeit variegated if not even disparate and opposed, yet evident within an essential core of commonality to which even dissent calculated cannot erase, or at least not as yet, as elemental to the pursuit of truth.
That his seeming bent on a common solution thus to the intricacies that characterize what he considers universal experience takes divisive dimensions he contends instructs the very nature and reach of the principles he claims drive him, and he hopes will others too.
He often says there is no merit in measures that otherwise tarnish those efforts universal in ways many discountenance for a variety of reasons not most inspiring being not to acknowledge the privilege to know what most consider routine, diligence to ensure human perpetuity, as a veritable historical antecedent given the stakes prevalent such knowledge mandates they confront.
It is possible he claims perhaps this signifies they lack the inspiration to ensure what they know is indeed, known, and actionable. He says it may also be a twist of inspiration in the wrong direction, in so far as inaction may create critical issues from whence others that may not just smudge their efforts, regardless of which direction they head, but those of everyone else, including those for whom they are routine.
The tendency for the individuals that distort valuable knowledge in a veneer camouflages that to which he asserts the privilege to know obliges that freedom impels, freedom to situate knowledge in situ apposite the lack that belies its import in signifying truth.
He denounces the essence of that exercise being rooted in anything else, grand narratives he insists grounds the march of the pursuit of the evasive truth in time, the very antithesis of the need to even try, the accomplishment of being close enough reason enough given the malleability of truth, inherently even with its extraneous contortion denied.
Not one to extract diffidence, being rather inclined towards dissolving it, given its nature to distract from the pursuit even to just being close to the truth, which he explicitly affirms, that he conveys his mission in his routine and at every chance suggests not that he embraces brashness, he insists, but that he seeks as he indeed, often says, the empowerment that would nullify if necessary, an asymmetrical force of information monopoly inimical to human progress some covet.
From one end of his milieu to another, he pontificates his vision, unfazed as he miffs some say, oblivious to the message from one they query his mission to begin with. He says that they would recompense all else being perpetrators of the same monopoly he argues against, that putative theorizing fails to validate, no matter its tinge.
They insist history beckons, that it is all a ploy for the eclectic to trump woes perceived diametrically opposed with actionable intent. In their view, it is the same face twisted to achieve the same inimical goals he claims stifle human advancement. They ballyhoo a new way he claims dilutes to finally rot. He seems to struggle to exalt a position they discredit as equally stale, as just another ideology.
With time, he concurs he faces formidable foes, and that the challenges are typical in a calculated move he says frails a jammed interface in which motion in any direction seems implausible, divisions predicated on alleged truths embedded enough to dim intuition or anything else that flows thereof.
As if in defiance, for which he earns his name even now, he admits his past and declares his vacillation that calls into question his stance. He justifies this with his belief in the truth being malleable although in this instance from without, but says he is now different, that he accepts the challenge to prove his aim.
In turn he dares his critics to commit to one too, which he says would solve the problem once and for all. They ask him what he is trying to prove, to which he responds that he needs not prove a thing, that after all he speaks so much of his aim, even those he claims should know differ just to have their way.
He continues to chase his dream, what he insists is universal, regardless of the positions his critics hold, confident he says all would concede in the end that to ignore the truth even if unattainable is indeed, not an option. He argues that all would need eventually to wager, that the challenge to prove our aim is in fact also inevitable.
At the end of every routine he prays, to all he claims to show before it is too late that truth is just in wait, to shift again, for all to see the need to keep in pursuit, so as to ensure the goal of all is not in vain. For once again, he claims, we face the challenge to move again, the posts of truth as we do, to test our faith, just this time we must where we should to be sure to move it again.
