I’m going to have yet another pop at that fascinating show Love Island.

How people are picked for love island is because they are pure id, I see them as unreal undeveloped people with zero worth or talent. The sort of people who want to realise their own desires and the expression of them without restraint, yet still wish to impose a control of perspective on others. These are the suitable folks, LI contestants are not applicants, they are poached from analysis of their online profiles (their digital ego creation). They are a product already developed and prepacked by a society that hegemonizes persons, sheep

So we watch and we observe vacuous beauty pretending to be more than it is, trying to appear deep and introspective. The problem being that that introspection focuses mostly on how they feel about how others feel about them while in the show, and that is not really introspection at all it is the id desiring and trying to figure out how to be popular as a product. A performance of course, a competition for a framed understanding of a created character. Like love or sympathy toward a pop artist or sportsperson that you don’t know, he/she who doesn’t know you exist and would not care anyway.

What most people introspect is the deep stuff, the existence of a higher power, the possibility of personal actualisation, the reason of their being, the minute nature of themselves in comparison with the vast universe, the impossibly short period of time of their existence to even consider all this in comparison with a geological period. When the locus of evaluation is firmly externally pointed, i.e. the self is judged by the self in value by the reactions of others, then the self is not introspected, it is unregarded because it is the person as a product in a marketplace of other people as products that is being examined. Am I good enough, am I beautiful enough to be accepted, am I valid, how do I become valid, who will tell me when and if I am valid? We each deeply wish to be accepted without judgement, psychology practices tend to agree on this, but it must be for the self that we are and not the self that we allow others to create us as.

Yes, of course a society will instil norms of behaviour in the person, especially in childhood, where they are taught that the most natural of animal instincts are negative, to fart, to fiddle with the pleaser sensors and pick the nose etc, and the most man-made of conditioned responses, like to defer to authority that is founded in falsehood, to respect the intolerable, to live up to the expectations of parents, to see all postulates as equal etc, are positive and can be set as goals.

This is not the case, I’ve pointed out before that to concentrate on positivism is a limited perspective when all progress of course arises from dissatisfaction. The point is that you do not have to be what society says is the one true way, in fact if you did pursue this and succeed you’d end up as just another sheep in a flock of white sheep. Imagine you are walking past a field of livestock, which beast would you notice? Obviously the one that differs from the rest. LI is a gameshow to find the best white sheep, it would never be apparent who the most interesting sheep is when all the sheep are the same and walking in the same direction. It is difference, rebellion, revolution that separate the best from the herd not greater similarity.

I would want to think differently just to think differently as the point of thinking at all.

Paul S Wilson