Self-fulfillment? Bounded by what limitations? Valid achievement? Defined by what context? Material gain? Supported by whose loss?
What's most astounding is not the lack of possibilities, but that you continue forth in full recognition of your own discontent, and with at least partial recognition for the discomfort of others.
Of course, one finds comfort in uncomfortable ignorance; "The more perfect race memory is, the more strictly confined will be the organism to [its] environment." However, the question you face is not "what should I do?" No, that's not the question at all.
You're quite intelligent, and you're quite aware that isn't the question.
In fact, you're so intelligent you almost know that question is disingenuous, and you're so aware you almost know that there are only two choices: what you want to do, and what you should do.
Progressing from almost to honest is easy, simply answer the following: why is want not compatible with should?
What is not so simple is also what is most disturbing; the possibility that you may never even try to answer. The answer is that it's never easy to administer elaborate hatreds and highly polished superfluities, bodily or mentally.
Mental complexity alone does not indicate validity, doctor. Can you not see that you can not see beyond the boundaries of your own terms? Obstruction arises from and is perpetuated by efforts that require commitment regardless of outcomes, and outcomes that require commitment regardless of discontent.
Discontent emerges as discomfort, and choice arises.
Will you permit discomfort to embellish itself by administrative degrees; to what extent must you extend in order to satisfy what definition? Will bodily awareness become mental unawareness; to what extent does unawareness satisfy? Ex aliquid nihil fit. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
"Nature is not a charitable institution. She is always inimical to life." You on the other hand need not be.
Part of the series: Servetus
[ triplespeak ]
Last updated May 31, 2012