there is always an ultimate form that a pursuit could, with enough effort, manifest into. for example a job’s ultimate form is your rewarding, satisfying dream job. the ultimate form of the woman you’re dating is a faithful loving wife, etc.
often it is obvious that a pursuit is unlikely to manifest its ultimate form. people will often place their efforts in proportion to this likelihood. for example, if it seems 40% likely that the company you’re working for will eventually offer you your dream position, then you apply 40% effort.
i say, if you are not 100% confident that the pursuit will bear your ultimate goal, abandon it and go to the next thing. by sheer numbers you will eventually land at that 100% thing, on which you can then apply 100% of your effort and faith.
i live by this thinking. and it often has people of the opinion that im a naive fool, how else could i have 100% faith in everything that i do. it’s not that i apply 100% faith to whatever 40% thing comes my way - the definition of naivety - it is that i do not engage those pursuits in the first place, so 100% likelihoods make up my entire palette. be forewarned, however, that 100% faith does not always equal 100% certainty; and that living life with full potential, maximum efficiency, and full faith, means that you will sometimes suffer from devastating let downs that are uncommon to people that do not live by this philosophy. for all rewards there is a price to pay, and that is the price here.
i also believe that if you understand exactly what circumstances brought you to the position you are at, and you were never unreasonably malicious or dishonest, you are able to live your life completely free of regret. i live my life very-near free of regret. no matter how bad things have become, as long as i understand why they have become that way, and that i made the most reasonable choice at every juncture that i could have given the knowledge and experience available to me at the time, i can never become upset by the circumstances themselves. this fact has often led people in my life to believe, because i am not panicking and upset like they are, that i do not appreciate what is at stake, and therefore also do not care about fixing the situation. in fact, i care 100% about fixing the situation and not 1% about the fact that a situation exists in the first place. if the emergency is the result of 100% best-possible (best does not always mean good, neither does best-possible mean best-imaginable) decisions, then you are both exactly where you should be, and at the best place you could be. even if best is not good, it is still best, and how can you be upset about being in the best possible situation? i realize that this philosophy may not be automatic for some people like it is for me. but just because it is difficult for you to understand or live by does not mean you should judge me because i am not running around panic-stricken like you are.
here, be forwarned that the crux of this philosophy is understanding. and that if you are relying on this philosophy to cope with hardship, when a hardship arises which you do not understand the cause of (which is an eventual guarntee) your ability to cope with that hardship will completely fall apart. and just like a person can die from the common cold if AIDS has wiped out their immune system, so too can you be wiped out by a seemingly small hardship (containing mystery) for which you will then have no means to cope with. if it is a major hardship that you do not understand the source of, you are especially F*ed
some people assume that there is only one reasonable set of philosophies. because the philosophies i live by come out sounding reasonable, and since their conclusions differ from mine, they feel their way of looking at life is under attack, and (often) worse, that i am intentionally attacking their way of looking at life. when in fact, unless you are truly insane, it is a 100% certainty that there is another philosophy that you are living by which is equally reasonable given your circumstances. your inability to articulate it to the same degree that i can articulate mine does not imply that it is less reasonable. out of this disparity in the ability to articulate, do not react out of, or avenge, your frustration by accusing me of playing "oratorical tricks" to degrade the integrity of my philosophies. if what i say comes out sounding crafty, that's because it is- often, like here, i am explaining things which nature created without consideration for how conveniently adaptable they would be to man-made language. if not for crafty language such things would not be expressible at all. so is that what you want? so i can comfort your insecurities i should make a conscious effort to stutter at you instead of expressing how i truly feel to the best of my ability? do i know oratorical tricks? YES. does that automatically imply that each time you feel frustrated it could only mean that i am using them to strong-arm you into my way of thinking because i think the true expression of my feelings wouldn't suffice? NO. that way of thinking is nothing other than a convenient way for you to dismiss everything i have to say in proportion to your frustration which is NOT MY FAULT