'ello there, I had a thought this morning and for some reason felt compelled to write it down before I lost my train of thought, but more importantly my enthusiasm towards it. I kinda just woke up and it literally was the first thing on my mind. really it's a question. Is it more admirable to consistently follow a moral code that you feel is not wholly right for your entire life, OR is it better to opt out of following something that you know not to be wholly right and instead always search for something better, even if it means making mistkes along the way and sometimes not having a set code to live by at a given time? Let me put it this way: Is it better to follow something you know not to be 100% right -or as humanly right as we can get- (which means you'll make incorrect judgements anyway) or is it better to make potentially less or more mistakes whilst trying to find something better? In the first option, there's consistency and you do obtain a sense of belonging by saying that you believe in -Blank- (whatever blank might be). But there's always that little problem of being true to oneself and chances are that if you have to deceive yourself into believing something that you know not to be true, than it really isn't worth it. Of course, I'm not trying to underscore the value of consistency. The benefits to that are numerable - mainly that you know what to do or think in practically any given situation, you know your stance because it's predetermined by the group in which you've sided with; whether it be political, religious or gang related. Oh yes my friends, there is generally honour among thieves... however twisted it may appear sometimes. But the inherent problem I keep brushing up against is that you're lying to yourself, and you know it. So how can a wrong action be defendable if the person committing said action knows that he/she is wrong? More generally, can a wrong action be defended if the person carrying it out is not confident in the institution who commands, recommends or otherwise endorses the action - assuming that they are unaware that the action is wrong? I'd go as far as to say that perhaps they shouldn't be affiliated with that group; even if it is the lesser of two evils; extreme circumstances notwithstanding. But what about the other option? While you're looking around for something that's fits perfectly, how do you base your decisions on any moral ground? Based on the supposed intrinsic rules? Even that has it's faults - like nobody being able to agree on what, assuming they can agree that 'what' actually exists, is and is not innate to our very being (before the influence of society). That's not to say that one must belong to a certain group to have a moral understanding of things, but everybody has to have something to believe in. -Everybody- So you wander through various beliefs and systems all the while never knowing exactly what to do. But at least you haven't thrown your lot into something you know you won't fully believe. Sure you'll make mistakes, but is it not better to make mistakes in the name of personal progress than a blind following? Or would it not be better to make mistakes for a real cause than a mistake for no real benefit at all - 'cause we all know that personal progress and self discovery can hardly be classified as a bona-fide cause. I was curious is all. Both sides have merit and really, it's just a matter of how you spin it. The real question is which one would improve the measure of a man in the court of public opinion because in all honesty, that's the only court that does and has always mattered the most. If you were unaware of that little fact, then let me be the first to welcome you to the Republic of Reality, my friend; Permanent Residents: 0. Capital City: Opinionville. Largest City: Cape Greed. Smallest Settlement: Port Hope. Government: Totalitarian. Climate: Chilly. Major Exports: Death, Unhappiness, Corruption and Dental Floss. Currency: Truth and Lies; whereby 100 Lies equals 1 Truth. Welcome indeed. So all that nonsense aside, I best be getting to the meat and potatoes of this entry before I lose any more of your attention. I was talking, er, rather typing to a friend the other day about something and it occurred to me that perhaps I ought to put this out to the masses... or at least the four people I have on my friends lists and or any random(s) who wish to input. I've been reading this series, or I was reading this series and there was this interesting concept. Well, you all know of the theory that whatever can happen, does. So that's to say that if there's a cookie sitting on the table behind you, and you choose to eat it, you choosing not to eat it also happens, you choosing to ignore it happens, you choosing to give it to someone else happens, you choosing to drop it n the ground happens, you choosing to throw it out happens etc. etc. etc. With that in mind, there are so many realities, if you will, that it's feasible that you're either dead, pregnant or incredibly rich in at least three different realities. Oh you laugh but it's more possible that you think. Back on topic, I stopped and thought, I thought long and hard. Let's say you could interact with one of those realities - you were given the chance to go and see how you turned out after making a different decision up to this current point in time. I'm not currently making this about regrets, because that's wishing you picked something else. This is about fulfilling a curiosity - would you not be just curious to see how your life might have changed had you taken that trip you had the chance to or asking that guy to the dance or whatever it may be. I realize that for each event there are more than two possibilities and that after each event there are other decisions to be made, but we'll follow the rule of probable actions and suppose that after you made a different choice, your decisions are what you'd most likely choose or most likely happen, so that only that one event and whatever it changes are changed. To not confuse the exercise with anything else, try thinking of something you think would actually change your life or really effect your current standing, as opposed to something you'd have liked to experience or wish you done/stopped etc. So you tell me, what's the one reality that you'd like to see how things turned out; how you would've changed as a person. Email me, comment, post it in your own diary or just think about it. When I really thought about it, I was surprised - not by the list, but by what occupied the number one slot. Funny how things work out sometimes eh? As for the rest of the list, it's on a need-to-know basis. But more importantly, it hasn't been created yet. Ever notice when you're putting your resumé together how easy it is to find a technical name for an otherwise menial job? More importantly, have you ever noticed how tempting it is to get carried away with the B.S.ing of your responsibilities? I just made my general labor job sound like I was the assistant manager of the department - sans title. Hopefully it'll fetch me a nice sum of money this summer. If not, at least it was fun creating it. Sometimes you gotta just lay, enjoy the ride and not worry if every single detail doesn't go according to plan. The way I see it, "there are two types of tragedies in life. One is not getting what you want the other is getting it." 100 lies later, - Captain B. Truth