Ways of Life

1. What kind of ambition do you live by - Do you see yourself as someone who prioritizes and has an ultimate direction for all you do ?

Or someone who has many concerns, priorities and values going on at the same time, some of which do not necessarily concur, depending upon circumstance ?

2. To what extent do you backup your interest/aims ? Do you see yourself as someone who always has a backup plan that you can believe in, that simplifies whatever situation you might imagine encountering?

Or do you attempt to accept and not be prepared for all the possibilities of error/disaster?

3. By what means do you backup your interest/aims ? Do you have the resources available for one or the other option out of the above ? (Physical, Practical, Financial/Liquidity/Contractual - Social, Mental, even "spiritual"/"higher judgement" - In that order.)

Which of those categories (bracketed) do you in particular wish to improve, and for what ?

>>>>1. You cannot keep a direction without functioning (bracketed) categories working for you rather than against you. Your direction may shift yet stay focused rather than scattered, even without any of the categories functioning well, aside from a somewhat ordered mental space, you may still possess such a sense of clarity/direction. What are you doing if you have no focus, no goal, no conclusions ? You may do well regardless, without absolutes, in the grand scheme probably not - and what fun is that ? A blunt instrument ? You may need a realistic sense of social class situation in order to prosper here. If anyone falls into the 2nd category (dont tell me anyone went there voluntarily ? On second thought please do, but i do believe that is sad - to be clear), they may more likely live with "stories" rather than "elements/means to some end" - which would seem miserable. --But people live that way ? Please explain. (Those people wouldnt happen to be held responsible for a car or several cars, and/or a costly residence ? Or married under convention ? Never mind. Paradoxically those people, even in these times (current convention being completely unreliable and unfair), tend to afford more stability by submitting to biological inclinations and "stories" like some beast of burden, rather than rational congruency, so far as I reckon. Which will inevitably end in some form of earth-bound slavery and regret, due to a lack of basically agentic contracting and disposition, and left over to compromising circumstance or convention. Seeing how the alternative is often more damaging depending upon various factors, i do not blame those people severely in that respect, though I never wish to relate to their way of life unless I had been forced/coerced to do so.) >>>>2. This has to be for those who truly are privileged. Those who -at least theoretically - establish and have the means of immediately, presumably efficiently countering any kind of personal issue in any area. If you dont try to be pre-paired, you must be deluding yourself that that is how anyone needs to live. - Well, if that helps anyone not stress, whatever works, I suppose. If you cannot reach the means towards trusting circumstances to run a certain course/direction, what good is clarity or direction ? (Staying focused rather than scattered probably would keep you less stressed and healthier, but being stopped by circumstance at any turn towards who-knows-what is pretty disappointing right ? - A simplification of the background conditions and responses to disorder are a necessary component to how you trust that you may stay on a certain course, despite obstacles. Why would anyone invest any time or resources otherwise.) >>>>3. It would seem most things come down to monetary funding. Money is something you have, not something you re-think or work with, it simply is present or not. For that reason money might seem to be the more reliable category. Unfortunately, that tends to be what manifests socially. It might be easy to forget that money reflects social belief, a kind of social contract. One might think all the other elements to human life could easily be liquified towards other kinds of reliable, socially sanctioned contracts. But that is not what tends to be possible at any given time. Humans have been better at establishing social contracts in the past. Social Contracts bridge the physical and intangible realms. If someone is lacking in any area other than the contractual/Financial, physical and practical, they are likely incapable of grasping what they may be lacking, socially/mentally/("Spiritually"), that is. The intangible side to circumstances seems to always hold the key to progression in all areas, yet it is tricky by design, if you will. I presume this to be truth. The intangible "realms" seem to me to be where people are kept guessing, waiting for something to change, for something to cohere, for something to finally fall into place. If they even harbor such ambition (Bulletpoint 1). That is my thesis currently. There may be several such dispositions surrounding the life of one person alone, of course. What grieves me is when anyone is basically dealing with such predispositions unnecessarily. I conclude that such predispositions could be translated to broken, unreliable or ill-formulated social contracts. Lets say you attempt to establish clear contracts all around your life and you know the vocabulary and concepts that go towards such. Then the only avenue of disarray would be other people not engaging those terms in any way that even allows you to gauge where you are at. You could have everything "perfect" but without common verbage and interest, nothing ultimately works. Would you even dare to write an actual contract or to suggest that, if you were otherwise trapped ? And how would you trust it ? What if more people focused on written social contract, whether legally backed or not ? Would that not make decisionmaking faster and more efficient ? You might say, but I want to trust that people are simply men of their word and have some basic integrity. That is a pleasant impression to afford, in regards to people and real scenarios in life, but that is not actually considerate or decent, even if you preceive it as "humane". One persons definitions and conditions may well not align at all with another persons´, which immediately sets a certain trajectory if there has not at least been a "tone set" towards contractual inter-action. In fact if that is not established, most things never even begin to function, except at best that which is based upon the pre-existing (shrivels of) social contract, (sadly, usually even unspoken) societal forms of trust and etiquette. Words and communication seems too often rather heedless or frivolous one way or another, intentionally or not. People speak things over a situation or over one another without response, without rebuke or common definition. Through words and behavior. Speaking socially too often echoes off the walls, so to speak. To my definition, all that does reflect contract or the absence and negation thereof. It motivates or demotivates social order, contract, growth and so forth. Would you feel inclined towards putting in the effort of rebuking all definitions that do not cohere to you with someone, before you may proceed towards a more conscious contractual exchange, even if what is continually spoken around you and over you is outside of your scope ? Im not saying the answer should be yes or no there. What i think it may imply is that often, getting on the same page may take more effort, consideration and energy than one may be (sub-consciously) prepared for - as well as the time- and energy consuming effort towards either trusting a pre-existing social agreement to back any agreement with someone, or one built-up by personal testing between people (even then, methods of testing may be near inapplicable to single persons, as they change and their circumstances may change in innumerable ways. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to observe groups or families rather than persons, while establishing contractual context in general.). Those inhibitions in mind, it still does seem strange why people dont contract more, could it be because they feel/think that most things are unquantifiable and unexpectable anyway, or expectably ill disposed ? - Things that render creative contracts self-negating regardless ? I think that is a correct statement to the extent that people prioritize and formulate basic (as in not overly refined) reliances sufficiently towards whatever end/goal/state of existence. Dont be "picky" - prioritize and stick with your conditions regardless what "downsides" inevitably turn up. The unknown or mystical can always turn up and ruin things completely. But it rarely does, unless of course to you everything is completely unknown and unsafe, in that case, i suppose that will be how one lives, without much trust or coherence. Another issue could be asking for contracts in a way that bypasses the limitations that others perceive. That may be an important element, though I should think that anyone could take on a more open stance towards any kind of negotiation, if they were motivated. Without social cohesion and thus more reliable social forms of contract, monetary systems will stay dominant. Humans are well-intended, but often less organized or recognized than the powers that (should not) be. Monetary systems will always exist, hierarchy will always exist, but those conditions do not need to dominate every contract in existence ultimately. The less necessary a monetary system is rendered, in favor of self-determined contracts rather than (pre-)fabricated ones, the freer and happier that society should be, not that it would necessarily follow, but I reckon the space would be cleared for that, at the very least, under such paradigm. And that the natural inclination of any living organism would function more benevolently on that basis, without any other largely required conditions. Nevertheless, life seems to have a way, regardless of reliable contracts, of rendering people unsure perhaps, in a way that complexifies and encourages a sense of unpredictability, unreliability, and ultimately undefineability. The "facts", "patterns" and definitions may change around and suddenly (even with "back-pay") corrupt that Culprit unrecognizeably. - All the more reason for establishing reliable, basic "contracts" to always fall back onto. That be in terms of the sheer amount of nonsense someone has to deal with and process at any time. I hope to think of as many avenues of failure towards the concepts of this article. Unfortunately, these complexities and hidden nature of human social life seem to be built-in to anyones life, whether it reveals itself or stays more subtly influential - I am presuming this to be the case. So with that in mind, what would mitigate that avenue of "attack" ultimately, always parsing the intangible elements to Life? - I think would be a certain predisposition or attitude. I should prefer to refine what i theorize on this, though so far i reckon that basically the following should be effectual towards that basic conundrum/predicament - so long as noone gets too "comfortable", at least ---- (None of the above, by the way, is meant to say that anything can ever really be planned-out, as life will inevitably throw everyone off-course at times. That still should not deter anyone from thorough order, contract or planning. As I would say - "Plans are usually irrelevant and ineffectual, but nothing works without them".) (3 sides to mental congruence)("what if everyone (...)") (fight flight freeze fawn healthy/unhealthy aspects) (religion/ texts overview) (etc) :

Suggested "recipe" towards resolving the paradoxical nature ("hen or egg") of the key component to Social / Mental /"Spiritual" or "Higher Order" coherency of the Mind relative to the tangible.

Main Issue: Not having a sense of direction / focus / sense of what main issue(s) may be / - basically, I postulate that this is grounded in a lack of "reality testing" in some basic way (to the unique individual).