Three monks walking a path.
The first is overly cognizant of their every action. They attempt to never crush or injure any tiny animal or insect underfoot. Their path commonly pauses and weaves as they place each foot into any available space between caterpillars.
The last also hesitates, hops, and lands. Their attempt, however, is to aim every one of their steps so as to kill as many caterpillars as circumstance might place upon their path.
The middle rarely looks down. They walk as straight a path as efficiently practical, only altering stride to avoid mud puddles or navigate obstacles.
This middle monk realizes, at times, that cleaning caterpillar guts from between their toes could be avoided if they were more like the first monk. But they only choose to do so when there are almost none visible. When caterpillars crowd the path, the middle monk re-prioritizes efficiency and rationalizes their actions—as they return their gaze to the horizon—that the few squished by happenstance are outnumbered by the mass who survive to become butterflies.
Thought: *boredom*Self-aware reply: (automatic dip in brain-chemical urging entertainment - will subside).Thought: *hungry*Self-aware reply: (preconditioned starvation-response when reserve fuel brought online - disregard - use rarely utilized reserves)
Thought: *alert! unfinished chores*Self-aware reply: (override - place mental health reminder as current top-priority)
Thought: *unfamiliar territory! confusion imminent!*Self-aware reply: (fear of change is based on childhood trauma - irrational to maintain sticky note - investigating new terrain only results in more efficient pathways)
Thought: *¡caution! new belief - requires admission of fallibility - ego dislikes embarrassment caused by "being wrong"*Self-aware reply: (growth is progress - adherence to faulty beliefs is stagnation - ¡new value! prioritize embracing fallibility over maintaining hypocrisy)
●scient● In the body of a word, scient is defined as: "knowing, or having awareness of, being morally knowledgeable—or practicing—such, with care and diligence".
Con● The prefix con indicates the word's definition includes: "together or with".●ious The first-suffix ious indicates an adjectival-form and adds: "possessing or full-of" to the word's definition.
●ness The second-suffix ness alters the adjective into an abstract noun while adding: "exemplifying a quality or state" to it's definition.
A close-acquaintance—who my wife and I shared casual conversations with for over a dozen years—joined us on our destination vacation. After we spent a good day-and-a-half catching up and sight-seeing together, we all went to sleep much later than expected on our second night.
Three Hours Lay-ter: Our close-acquaintance's phone emitted a 'text incoming tone' causing my wife and I to wake up. After the tone happened again (and again) I called-out to our close-acquaintance to wake up. They did not. I elevated my voice. They still didn't. I went into the next room, shook them awake, informed them that their phone kept waking us up, and asked them to quiet it. They did not.Realizing that I was now 'awake-awake' I got a book and a place where my light wouldn't disturb the others.Four More Hours Lay-ter: Our close-acquaintance says 'good-morning' and I inform them that I had been awake for the last four hours. They asked, 'why'? This was a strong indicator that they forgot to bring their Where's Waldo costume (which was something I pretended not to notice when they "forgot their wallet" the previous day). Hoping their next answer was a baffled 'no', I asked if they recalled that I woke them at 0430 because of their phone. 'Yes' was their reply.My acquaintance then attempted to justify their decision to not quiet their phone, with a variety of excuses. They opened with the 'blame gambit' (classic gaslighting): "But, you started to hand me the phone but, instead, set it down on the table!" One of their next moves proved their unflagging-lack of conscientiousness: "If you were someone who owned a smart phone, you wouldn't've been bothered by notification-bubble sounds! (This clumsy shame-blaming attempt, caused me to smirk in the same manner they were smirking.)Metaphorically requesting they put on a red-and-white striped hat, I politely-but-sternly said, "Now isn't the time for excuses or for blaming light-sleepers. Now is the time for apologies. Your phone woke us up. I brought it to your attention. You chose NOT to quiet it."Fumbling with the Waldo-hat, they stammer-replied, "I'm apologizing. This is me apologizing. Right now." All of their body-language—smirk in mouth's corners; anger in brow-scowl; impatient swing of arms, pointing finger, and pacing gait—combined with their obvious avoidance of sorry, brought into a spotlight: I'd (yet again) been duped by someone with no empathy and without a conscience. So, I responded with, "You need to tell your face!"Staring down at me, book still in my lap, frustration coalesced into stern decisiveness on my acquaintance's face. (Apparently, so unfamiliar with the traits instilled by a conscience, they couldn't fake it.) They then asked, in a very officious tone-of-voice, if I would allow them to deliver closing-arguments without interruption. I sternly replied, (in my decades-long-unused interrogator addressing a suspect tone-of-voice) "Be careful what words you choose to say next."After listening to a dry summation of previously-stated excuses, I told the person I was once acquainted with that they needed to leave. They then—and only then—allowed a brief-slip in their decisive-mask to expose their confused inner-workings; they muttered, "n'...wai-wha?...at's not...", which I put-down with one of my rare stares(³).
●path● In the body of a word, path is defined as: "suffering from an ailment of—or practicing—such a treatment".Em● A common variation of the prefix en, the prefix em indicates a definition includes: "to cause someone to be within a state of...".●etic The suffix etic indicates the adjectival-form adds: "pertaining to..." to the definition.
"They pathetically rolled on the ground, screamed until out of breath, and beat at the earth"—needs more words to completely understand.Add, "because they refused to take a nap."—and pathetically now has enough context to be interpreted with some accuracy. Most readers choose to interpret this description as that of a ham-handed performance by someone (usually a child) attempting to elicit pity from an audience.
However, if nap-refusal is replaced with: "after being informed that their entire family had just been murdered."—and, in this context, pathetically is interpreted very differently. Most readers choose to interpret this description as that of legitimate mental-suffering by someone (usually an adult) unexpectedly caught in uncontrollable "throes of agony."While both child and adult are behaving in a pathetic manner, the over-actor shamefully begs for sympathy or empathy and the sole-survivor is rudderlessly inundated in an emotional tsunami they were never prepared for. You—the audience—must pick who you will console. One? Both? Neither? [Do it now.]
An overt decision is required when most people decide to express empathy. While almost anyone's attention can be snagged by the specific tone and pitch of a scream, mature-savvy adults interpret (within seconds or even microseconds) the source/scene/context and decide to either "switch-empathy-off" or "switch-empathy-on".
Sociopaths—scorn everyone who outwardly expresses any empathy—consider any
mature-savvy adult who acts empathetic to be "gullible fools." Conditioned
to never differentiate between reluctant-nappers and sole-survivors,
sociopaths believe all outward displays of emotion (which includes
their own) are "fake antics of con-artists and crisis-actors." {And the award
for best Alex Jones Info Wars tirade goes to...}
{Insert a touching-yet-informative story about Yetta B. Savvy who only adopts senior and terminally-ill rescue-animals because Yetta feels an incessant urge, which is best described as a "need-to-be-needed". When Yetta doesn't have a constant, daily, target-source on which to focus their empathy, they feel constant anxiety, discomfort, insomnia, and depression.}
Defined by—after one recalls them—the simple word: regrets, Sterger Memories are those thoughts, which fill-in-the-blanks in sentences like this one: "I wish I did not choose - blank - when I considered - blank - and instead opted to - blank - which (because of current circumstances) I now regret not choosing at the time."
Everyone's metaphorical bin o' memory contains some surviving ideas, loose concepts, sketched plans, untaken suggestions, and never-realized fantasies pertaining to their previous "paths-not-taken". We form these Sterger Memories whenever we deliberate long and strongly enough over some decision we considered serious enough, important enough, valuable enough, or irrevocable enough to require a sufficient amount of self-deliberation to "weigh our options," or "formulate a contingency plan," or "diligently exercise caution," before we choose our correct next course of action.
Humans normally only recall Sterger Memories after coming-to-realize (discovering too late) that they're now presently, willfully, meandering down another wrong path!—and they realize the need to make another crucial decision. Realizing the need to correct course causes humans to think back. In their rear-view-mirror, they recognize their previous unchosen options they had once considered (or should have considered). These are not yet regrets; these are still Sterger Memories. The human who re-considers their Sterger Memories with new, more-experienced, eyes and wishes they had not wasted their own time (feels regret) can opt to incorporate those re-recalled memories into their correct next decision. Or not.
If-and-when we find ourselves in a place in our lives, which we feel contentment-with or sublime satisfaction-in (this perfect path we're currently on) what benefit might be gained from recalling the other options we once carefully weighed and then discarded (besides self-congratulatory ones)? When we "have no regrets" our Sterger Memories, surrounding the sufficiently content path we chose, are left un-recalled.
Over the decades, Sam Landlord amassed several profitable apartment buildings. The income they generated kept he and his family wealthy into his retirement years. When Sam turned 65 years old, he decided to keep all of the apartment buildings until after he turned 70. Sam made that decision because he considered maintaining and managing the buildings might become a burden as he aged; Sam did not want the managerial duties and up-keep chores to become too difficult.
Turning 70 when Covid-19 began, Sam could not sell any of his apartment buildings. Today, three years later than planned, Sam wishes he could quickly sell all his properties. The housing market is being bludgeoned by the economy; inflation is racing recession into the guardrails; eviction moratoriums took some toll on Sam; and, now, he recalls the Sterger Memories he made when he turned 65.
Sam recalls deciding not to sell the properties for various different reasons, which made logical sense in 2015. Now, however, Sam constantly trips over the idea that he would be so much better off today, if he had sold the properties back then. "I'd have profited several tens-of-thousands-of-dollars-less, but the lack of today's strife, reduction in constant stress, and the time-savings, would make that loss worth every penny!" Sam chides himself. Sam's almost-forgotten Sterger Memories have become regrets.
If Sam had decided, in 2015, that he was as "comfortably satisfied" as he could-be and chose to sell one property a year (so as to not be burdened by the Federal Capital Gains Tax) between 2015 and 2019, he would have no reason to recall one of his Sterger Memories had been an option to retain all the properties until after he turned 70. In that unrealized universe, those Sterger Memories never got turned into regrets by Sam.
Sterger Memories Become "Buyers Remorse":
It's rarely possible to recall previous options unless lengthy deliberation occurred. Recalling the options we ultimately did not choose, becomes harder and harder as time passes, and we confirm (to ourselves and others) that we're satisfied and have no regrets.
We are not able to tell ourselves to, "forget those unneeded details." Instead, we allow our minds to forget things by the simple act of not recalling them. If we did not deliberate or dwell on any given decision, for any sufficient length of time, the "other options" would not, therefore, have been contemplated long enough to be "saved". No deliberate-contemplation results in no Sterger Memories available from which to form future regrets.
How was lunch with Ms Snapperhead? Fine. What did you eat? Aahh Chicken Tettrazzini with a slice of homemade pie; field-berry à la mode! What were some of the menu choices you considered but didn't choose, and why did you decide not to eat them? I'm sorry, I don't recall.
Retention of one's Sterger Memories relating to a recent successful decision is normally done without even consciously realizing it. However, if one eventually realizes their decision was made in error, they can then-immediately recall their Sterger Memories, which are now labelled as 'regrets'.
Congratulations on the new job! How are things going so far? I don't know; things could be better. Oh, how so? Well the section supervisor is a real piece of work. And, I had no idea that this company would be so authoritarian about anyone checking-or-taking-their-phone-out during work hours. And, maybe it's just me, but there's this ass-hat who irritates me all day long with their grating tone of voice.
Efficiency Causes Sterger Memories (everywhere):
This is definitely not a strictly-human process. Every living entity (including single-celled organisms) that utilize limited energy resources in order to enhance their survival, prioritizes their movements towards a more-efficient capacity. A mouse learns the maze. A branch pivots to keep its leaves in sunlight. A salmon returns to the only safe spawning grounds it's capable of recalling.
And—while an average human tries to carry too many items at one time, because they 'decided' making several trips would, presumably, be less efficient (result in an increase in fatigue, cause additional levels of irritation, et cetera)—a single-celled pond-scum bacterium tries to escape being eaten by a nearby bacterium, of the same species, by shift-sliding away from their cannibalistic-relative in the most efficient manner possible, in accordance with the amount of energy it has available.
Conclusion Given: 3 years ago I clearly didn't understand Nietzsche's Love Fate🖤
Whether the "drive-toward-efficient-decisions" can be referred to as "innate"; or if that drive is able to save a single cell's existence for a few more minutes of "life"; or if it only results in "saving" a few more minutes of human energy-time—Sterger Memories are only able to become regrets if we want them to. (Note to Self: Re-read that very complex sentence until it clicks!)
If we do not decide-to-value (from now on and forevermore) the incremental knowledge we gain from experiencing every and all the events which involve testing the current path we are on, in lock-step with: choose-deciding when it's the appropriate time to give a different path a try—versus—continuing on the same path (revealing a constant undercurrent of everything related to the microseconds of conservation of energy going on at a below-cellular level*) all-the-while trusting that we will derive more enjoyment from exploring and learning from this current-new-previous path, for a sufficiently comfortable amount of "additional-experience-time" AND definitely not ever, never, wishing to have avoided the potholes and pitfalls which were never, not ever, going to have been visible, predictable, or imagined from the vantage point of yesterday. This is how you avoid regrets.
You would never desire imagining Self flagellation, if you decide-choose, instead, to enjoy the challenges (love all the everything's, which chaotic fate has allowed you to recognize as opportunities for growth). Chaotic fate possesses no ability to conspire. This one-way attitude is how to understand Nietzsche's Amor Fati (Love Fate).
I chose when I thought it would be appropriate to choose and will choose when I think it will again Be. Wishing to walk one path unerringly is ignorantly wishing for the most pleasurable death-time and death-experience. Loving the cautious 'skip' over potholes and the care-full 'deviation' around pitfalls, just means you enjoy the experience of learning what life has randomly removed from its store-room for you to become a better you.
I suspect these last four paragraphs are both easily understood and at-the-same-time undecipherable by 99.9% of people who read them. Even if I highlight the message and scream it loudly, only those very-few others, who've become self-aware, will interpret them through the lens of not knowing what Love Fate means and recognize it has value as truth.
If this is you, come back in a time when you are back here. If then, these paragraphs hit harder and smell more comfortable. Well. Hello.
* I'm not able to state that atoms have awareness. Nor am I able to state that sub-atomic particles act with intent. But I'm also not able to state any-everything-else, which I've not become aware of by experience as being true. Or false. Or neither.
🖤 This Exercise in Testing Awareness of Self might only work for those who also (previous to their own self-awareness) didn't understand the benefit of Amor Fati, or why Nietzsche wrote about it as he did. Although it's entirely possible I (merely) became this-fuckin-much smarter in the last few years, which resulted in my ability to understand Amor Fati, write about it cogently, and put it into practice...I recall that this complex-level of understanding came into awareness during one session of self-contemplation.
Final Word (footnote under the footnotes): If you do not understand Amor Fati—after reading about Sterger Memories—then it will no-doubt come as a shock that I made all this up from 'whole cloth'. The word sterger is regrets spelled backwards. This is original thought on the page! This is how a philosopher do (*in a Zefrank tone of voice*) -bitch.
More Go On and Ego One More:
I honestly despise every bit and byte of the most recent revelations from the sunset stained stucco-and-concrete hued neurons in y...
