HEEYYYYAAAA!!! so, after two months i'm finally back on my beloved blog page, this is my first blog/journal of 2026.. i guess a lot of things happened in these days and i "kind of" regret not writing about all these days in *DETAIL*, you know? regardless, i did document a VERY few of my thoughts on random days, so here it is.[PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, I'VE FORGOTTEN A FEW BITS OF HTML AND I'M PRETTY EXHAUSTED SOMEHOW]
ok, so i've been thinking about this thing again, and the more i think about it the more it feels like i'm just spiraling again.. but maybe that's the point of writing this down on a FREAKIN' notepad.. like you know i just want to see how the thoughts unveils itself when they're not JUST stuck inside this encumbered head.
so, as i was going through r/suicidewatch and mentalhealth related sub-reddits, i read many things while going through things and all and ive got a few queries..
>"if something is not chosen, not a deliberate attempt then it's acceptable"
by the virtue of it, can we say that things like murder, assault should be acceptable because the victim doesn't gets to choose or not choose the action of the perpetrator?
it isn't, right??
now, considering the notion that if something is not chosen, not a deliberate attempt, then it's acceptable, can we extend that logic somewhere else? because if we do, then doesn't it start getting weird? like, if the absence of choice somehow makes something acceptable, then what about things like murder or assault? the victim obviously didn't choose that action. it wasnt their deliberate attempt.. by that logic, should it be considered acceptable? obviously not. that sounds absurd. so somewhere along the line the logic collapses, right? there must be something missing in that reasoning.
now, my main question is 'cause we also donnot choose our life either, do we? we dont choose where we were/would be born, what family we would be born into, what religion gets imposed on our arses, what socioeconomic conditions shape our childhood, what language we first speak, what cultural framework molds our thinking. none of that is chosen. it's just assigned to us at birth like some sort of preset configuration, or hoping into some sort of random roleplay game with no ability to choose your character. so if that's the case, why do people keep insisting that we must keep pushing forward in a life we never consciously opted into? isn't there some sort of contradiction there? why insist on carrying a burden that you never actually volunteered to carry in the first place?
and before going further i should probably clarify this again because people tend to misunderstand these kinds of questions. right now i don't have any *serious* intent to harm myself, resort to harmful things or anything like that. these are just random arse questions floating around in my head while i'm in a supposed normal mental state. i'm literally just trying to understand the logic behind certain ethical claims. i'm someone born on 2009, it's 19/01/2026 today, i'm sixteen(wai- i just turned seventeen..) and thinking about things that i might not even fully comprehend yet. maybe these questions are naive, maybe they're unsophisticated, maybe i'm just overthinking things. but still, the questions exist in my head, so i might as well write them down.
also, so there was this one very prominent argument u/sers were talking about:
>"human life has inherent value, regardless of suffering, productivity, or happiness."
but i wonder.. who exactly assigns that value? where does that authority come from? is it some omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gAwD that supposedly exists somewhere beyond the universe but never actually intervenes in anything? or maybe is it society collectively deciding that human life must be considered sacred? or is it the individual themselves who assigns meaning to their own goofy arse existence? who exactly confiscates the authority to declare that a human life has intrinsic value? because value is usually something that requires a valuer. without someone assigning it, does value even exist in the first place?
then there's another claim people make:
>"decisions like suicide are made under distorted judgement like depression, trauma, despair and all that sort of stuff so blah blub hlfbdafba and therefore they aren't reliable choices."
and i guess that makes sense to some extent. but then FOR ME(yes, my encumbered retarded arse is sooo handicapped) another question arises. if distorted judgement is the result of external circumstances.. like ourr environment, trauma, upbringing, stress, societal pressure.. then isnt distorted judgement itself a byproduct of the material conditions surrounding a person? and if thats true, then how much agency/control does someone TRVLY have over their own mental state?
and that brings up another weird arse question.
is making a judgement under the influence of *NATURAL* dopamine considered erroneous? what if that dopamine isnt artificially induced through drugs but naturally produced by the brain? is a decision made under strong sUpPoSeD positive emotion also a distorted judgement? or does it only become 'distorted' when the emotion is SuPpOsEdLy negative?
most people would probably say something like "it depends on the context." or soething
but that doesn't really makes sense for me. that judgement itself is always contextual. there's no perfectly neutral absolutely sane human mind operating in some sort of a vacuum.
humans are always under the influence of something.
sleep deprivation changes your thinking, hunger changes your thinking, stress changes your thinking, social pressure changes your thinking, hormones change your thinking, dopamine changes your thinking, serotonin or whatever that shit is called changes your thinking, SO I MEAN- basically every mental state we experience is mediated by brain chemistry in some way. sober isn't some pure default state. it's just a particular balance of neurotransmitters at a given moment, right..???
so when people say that certain altered states are invalid because they're influenced by chemicals, it feels slightly confusing because every mental state is influenced by chemicals..??
also, btw.. i start wondering is there some sort of metaphysical "TRVE SELF" that exists beyond everything? some version of consciousness that is supposedly more legitimate than the others? or are all mental states just different biochemical configurations?
i'm not an expert in neuroscience or neurochemistry obviously. i'm just a loser arse, with an encumbered brain. these are just loose thoughts. but the idea that some mental states are considered legitimate doesn't really sits with me..
another argument people make is that sv1c1de causes lasting harm to loved ones and all that malarkey.
and that point is ok -_-
definitely understandable.
but then again, many people already carry grief about things they never chose.. their upbringing, their parents, the environment they were raised in, the opportunities they never had, the emotional scars they inherited. can someone impose guilt on their parents for those things? maybe they can internally, but most people will never openly express that to their parents. those emotions just remain suppressed :c
so then suicide becomes this strange paradoxical moment where a person suddenly gains absolute control over.. mortality..?? but that act simultaneously creates suffering for others...???? i don'lt know, eh.
but maybe im too young and encumbered for my age to grasp these topics properly. i'm just being obtuse asf bru.
also theres another thought that comes up within my mind.
people say we should accept natural death because it's inevitable.. if death is inevitable, why delay it?? if it's unavoidable, why invest so much effort trying to push it further away? and on the flip side, if death is inevitable anyway, why fear it so much? why am i even alive bru.
and again, just to repeat this because it matters: these are not thoughts coming from a place of self harm or desperation. they're just reflections happening while im in my normal mental state. some of these thoughts are remnants of how i used to think a few months ago.. i was spiraling more though. now they feel just abit more distant.
but regardless, the questions still linger tho. not in a way that makes me wayyr too furious or miserable, but in a way that keeps nudging the mind to keep thinking or something.
i was reading the reception section of progressive rock on wikipedia today and something there kinda made me pause for a second. it said that british and european audiences typically followed concert hall behaviour protocols associated with classical music performances and were more reserved in their behaviour than audiences for other forms of rock. this confused musicians during US tours, as they found american audiences less attentive and more prone to outbursts during quiet passages.
and i'm like.. LOL, WHATTT??
so you're telling me people would just sit there quietly like they're attending some sort of classical recital while a progressive rock band is performing? that sounds so strange to imagine, because when i think about rock concerts i always imagine people going crazy, shouting, jumping, losing their minds. but then again progressive rock did always have that weird intersection with classical traditions and rock(though only ELP pioneered the actual progressively classical rock-ish thingy), so maybe the audiences subconsciously carried that etiquette with them.
but still, the idea of someone sitting quietly while king crimson is playing something like larks’ tongues in aspic live feels hilarious to me. like imagine someone trying to stay composed while that chaos is unfolding on stage..?? or am i WAYYYY too americanized?????? i'm just retarded.
then i saw another quote.
even king crimson leader robert fripp dismissed progressive rock lyrics as
>“the philosophical meanderings of some english half-wit who is circumnavigating some inessential point of experience in his life.”
LMMMFAOAOOOOADFKHDFAHFKAHFKHAKHFAKHFK.
why did so many prog musicians kinda hate the genre they were part of?
i've noticed this a lot actually. a bunch of prog artists seem almost embarrassed by the label. they either reject it, mock it, or act like they werent really part of it even though they clearly were.
maybe its because the term progressive rock eventually became a stereotype,,??? overtly long arse tracks, fantasy lyrics, weird time signatures, excessive virtuosity.. and musicians didntt want to be boxed into that caricature...???
or maybe it's just fripp being fripp(i love robert frippp YAAYAYYAYFDYFYDAYFDAJFHGJAHAJHHGA).
the man speaks like he's delivering some philosophical lecture even when he's roasting an entire genre he was part of(literaly popularized the entire genre..??!!).
another thing that caught my eye was this line:
>“bands whose darker lyrics avoided utopianism, such as king crimson, pink floyd and van der graaf generator, experienced less critical disfavour.”
so apparently critics disliked the more utopian or fantasy oriented prog lyrics?
hmm, ok.. BUT which bands actually had those utopian lyrics though?
i never really paid much attention to lyrics in prog anyway, until and unless its a very acclaimed piece/suite. most of the time i'm focused on the instrumentation.. the sonic textures, the structures, the transitions between distinct movements. lyrics usually become secondary unless it's something like from the big 6 of prog. like crimson’s lyrics often feel cryptic but strangely psychological, while pink floyd’s stuff often dives into alienation, insanity, war, capitalism, all those humane themes. i think that's probably why i resonate with them more.
then another weird thought popped up.
why do people from older generations.. especially pre-2000s interviews.. speak in such a sophisticated tone? like even when they're saying something casual it sounds structured and articulate, almost theatrical.
robert fripp in particular speaks like he's narrating some philosophical treatise.
am i just inexperienced in english? or did people actually talk like that more often back then?
because nowadays if someone spoke like that people would probably say they're using "slop language" or trying too hard to sound intellectual. so who’s actually shaping the language now? the people? or the algorithms trained on the people? or people adapting their language because of algorithms?
i don't know, bru.
sometimes it feels like people outsource their basic thinking to generative ai now, which is kinda ironic considering ai itself is trained on human thought in the first place. the dead internet theory is quite evident, we're all deep fried, bru. had a debate with this cornball on reddit, and all he did was use ai, lmfao.
anyways, leaving that aside for a second.
another thing i was thinking about was genesis. like what about the other members during that era? peter gabriel gets most of the attention due to his appearance and subsequent solo career.. but what about the rest of the band?
were they just casually fighting tarkus while wandering through larks' tonuges in aspic on the dark side of the moon? (diabolical references, hahah)
the whole 1970s prog aesthetic was interesting though. femboy ahh long hair, theatrical costumes,.. prog rock almost functioned as an anti mainstream statement back then. so i guess youth culture was still reacting to the aftershocks of the 1960s counterculture. they looked weird. and importantly intentionally weird.
but also you know take a look at the 1980s. suddenly those same musicians are in their 30s or 40s. hairlines receding, faces aging, wearing suits, short hair, looking like serious corporate adults. and at the same time the music industry itself becomes much more corporate and globalized. sooo the aesthetic changes too. it's almost like the industry slowly absorbed the rebellious energy that existed in the 70s.
but then there are exceptions.
bands like king crimson somehow maintained artistic integrity through multiple decades, constantly mutating their sound rather than settling into one style.
honestly, sometimes i feel like king crimson is less of a single band and more like several completely different bands that just happen to share the same name.
their early late-1960s material feels like some sort of classical jazz symphonic rock hybrid. then the 70s era becomes darker and more experimental. and then the 80s lineup suddenly introduces this weird fusion of new wave, polyrhythms, minimalism and proto math rock. like seriously, some of those rhythmic structures feel insanely close to what later math rock bands would explore.
that one particular album from the 80s.. i won't even name it here because anyone who knows crimson will immediately recognize it.. is one of the finest prog records ever recorded in my opinion. it feels so different from their earlier stuff yet still unmistakably crimson. listening to their entire catalogue chronologically genuinely feels like listening to five or six completely different bands evolving across time.
but at the same time i wouldn't call them the sole pioneers of progressive rock. that genre is just too dense with brilliant bands. even on the mainstream side you've got YES, genesis, emerson lake & palmer, gentle giant, van der graaf generator, camel, and dozens more.
trying to declare one single band as “THE BEST” in prog almost feels meaningless. the genre itself was built on constant experimentation. but then another thought creeps in.
i can't really capture the feeling of consuming that media in the time period it originally existed.. like imagine it's 1986 and you see a record released in 1981.
you wouldd think: oh, that album came out five years ago.
that five year distance probably felt tangible maybe..???
but now when i look at 1981 i think:
bro that WAS 45 years ago!!
the scale of time feels completely different.. funny thing though.. today i was thinking about my cousin sister’s age, and suddenly realized it's been around five years since 2021, the year she was born. that realization felt weird. because 2021 doesnt feel that far away in my head. yet it's already half a decade ago. time perception is so strange. recent years feel compressed and just some sort of a not so distant air. but older decades feel enormous, or could it be because i didn't really lived through them? would i have felt the 1970s were just a few years ago if i had lived through it??!!
another thing i've noticed is that most of the fun i've had in the last few years hasn't really come from new media. it mostly came from consuming older media. old music, old films, older internet culture. the internet itself between 2021-2023 felt like peak days for me. tons of discoveries, tons of rabbit holes, constantly finding new things to listen to or watch.
but now when i try to imagine what it must have felt like watching something like blue velvet in 1986.. i genuinely can't grasp it. like sitting in a theater back then and experiencing that film for the first time, without decades of cultural hindsight.
but then another reality check appears.
even if i somehow travelled back to that time, would i actually be living that romanticized life?
probably(definitely) not.
chances are i would have been some poor guy just trying to make enough money to survive, or landing into a war instigated country. barely having access to art films or experimental music at all. so maybe(definitely) the nostalgia for past eras is always selective. we imagine the art, the culture, and all that stuff but we rarely imagine the socioeconomic reality surrounding them. and that realization kindaa grounds the whole romantic fantasy a little bit. still though.. thinnking about those eras, those records, films, tv series etc those cultural shifts.. is just soooo fascinating.
and sometimes it just feels like i'm a random teenager in 2026 reading wikipedia at night and spiraling into weird thoughts about random history.
which, i guess, is also fine.
so, today i was listening to a lot of noise rock and industrial stuff again, and i stumbled upon this band--brainbombs, and honestly, i'm not even sure how to feel about them properly, like i do like something about their sound, but at the same time something in me just completely rejects them, and i can't really tell if that rejection is justified or if i'm just being immature or something, because sonically speaking they're actually pretty intriguing, like not in a very astonishing or "this is revolutionary" type of way, but more like they sit in this very dense, repetitive, uncomfortable zone where the sound just keeps dragging you into it without really giving you anything traditionally "pleasing" sort of sound, and i do kinda like that, especially in the obey record, like there are moments where i genuinely feel like "yea, this is getting good", but then the lyrics come in and it just completely ruins the entire thing for me, like not even in a "oh wow, that's edgy, hwhhdfalhdskflha" way, it is more like a very instinctive "why the fuck am i listening to this?" type of reaction, and then i start thinking
"ok, if i completely strip off its lyrical content, like just strip them off entirely, would i still like this?"
and i think the answer is yes, like genuinely yes, maybe even more, because then i wouldnt have that constant discomfort interfering with the listening experience, but then again, is that even valid? like am i allowed to selectively ignore a part of the art just to enjoy the other part? or is the whole point of the art that you're not supposed to separate them?
and then it gets even weirder when i start reading about them, like swedish band, 1985, hudiksvall, all that stuff, connections to other acts, influence from power electronics, post-punk, noise, and i'm like ok, that makes sense sonically, but then i read about the lyrical themes and influences and it just spirals again, like rape, torture, murder, and influence from peter sotos, and then i pause again because now it's not just “edgy lyrics”, it's something more specific, more intentional, more.. i don't even know the word for it, like deliberately pushing into the grotesque aspects of human behaviour, and then my encumbered brain does that stupid thing where it tries to generalize, like "do swedish people have some sort of voyeuristic tendency or something?" and then immediately i'm like no, thats dumb as hell, because how do you go from one underground noise band to generalizing an entire country that also produced completely different artists like abba, avicii, roxette, meshuggah, like that makes no sense, so clearly this is just a niche subculture thing, especially in those underground industrial/noise scenes from the 80s and 90s where shock value and confrontation were almost like a core part of the aesthetic, but then even after correcting that thought, the original question still stays.. why make something like this?!?!
like genuinely, why?
is it just shock art? is it just to provoke a reaction? or is there actually some deeper intention behind it? because people always say that "depicting something in art is not the same as endorsing it", and yea, that sounds reasonable, like obviously writing about something doesnt automatically mean you support it, but then another part of my brain goes.. ok, but where do you draw the line? because there's also a very real possibility that someone is just channeling their own disgustingly filthy internal fantasies or impulses into art and then hiding behind that exact statement, like:
"oh it's just exploration of darker aspects of humanity",
and we would literally have no way of knowing which one it is, like how do you differentiate between critique and expression? between observation and indulgence? and then i read about peter sotos and it just completely messes with that boundary, because this isn't just some abstract controversial artist, this is someone who literally wrote in detail about extremely disturbing things and then got arrested for possession of actual CSAM material, so now the entire "it's just art" argument starts collapsing, or at least it becomes way more unstable, because if the person behind the art is actually engaging in harmful behaviour in real life, then can you still separate the art from the artist? or does the art become an extension of that behaviour?
and then it gets even more confusing because brainbombs released obey in 1996, so they were definitely aware of all this, like this was't hidden information, so why still take influence from that? was it purely for the sake of extremity? like pushing boundaries just for the sake of pushing them? or did they genuinely see some kind of artistic value in that kind of subject matter? and if they did, then what exactly is that value? because i'm trying to understand it and i just can't fully grasp it, like i can understand dark themes, i can understand discomfort, i can even understand confrontation in art, but this feels like it crosses into something else, something that doest sit right, you know? and then i start comparing it to something like throbbing gristle's hamburger lady, which is also disturbing, but in a completely different manner, like that track doesn't feel like it's trying to be sensational or grotesque for the sake of it, it feels more like it's placing you into a situation and just letting you experience it without explanation, almost like a document or a detached observation, and that kind of discomfort feels more.. it's more of a storytelling or like a note which puts you in a foggy atmosphere
as if it puts you in a different realm, and then you're listening about someone you aren't even aware of.. the narrator proceeds to instill the exact note, not explaining you anything. directly confronting. i ddon't know, meaningful? or maybe just less exploitative? but then again, is that just my subjective interpretation? maybe someone else would see it differently.
and then i circle back to myself again, because despite all this, despite the discomfort, despite the aversion, i still find something appealing in the sound itself, and that's the part that confuses me the most, like why do i like the sonic texture? what exactly am i responding to? is it the repetition? the rawness? the fact that it doesn't follow conventional musical structures? or is it just the novelty of hearing something so different from mainstream music? and if i like it, does that say something about me? or am i overthinking it way too much? because liking a sound doesn't necessarily mean endorsing its themes, right? but then again, can you completely detach those two things? or are they inherently linked?
and then i think.. maybe i'm just too young to properly process this kind of stuff(even though it's been ALMOST a month since i turned 17; i feel like my brain is just encumbered and retarded asf), like i'm still trying to figure out basic things and here i am trying to analyze extreme underground noise music and its philosophical implications, maybe i'm just making it more complicated than it actually is, or maybe it is complicated and that's why it feels so uncomfortable to think about, and maybe that discomfort itself is part of the experience, like maybe this kind of art is meant to put you in this exact position where you're questioning not just the art but also your own reaction to it, and i don't even know if that's a good thing or not, but it definitely makes it hard to just listen to it normally.
and i guess that's where i'm stuck right now, not really rejecting it completely, not really accepting it either, just kind of hovering in between, trying to understand why it exists, why it affects me the way it does, and whether i should even be engaging with it in the first place or just leave it entirely, but even that question doesn’t have a clear answer, so i just end up thinking about it again and again without really reaching anywhere.