One of the root causes of a perceived lack of options is arbitrarily setting boundaries that don't exist in actual reality.
People do walk around with invisible fences in their minds, convinced they're made of steel when these fences are really made of nothing at all.
Certain boundaries feel solid because we've thought about them for so many times and reinforced with so many private conversations with ourselves.
Until real reality poke holes at the fence, it remains as solid as our belief in it.
I can't write like her, so therefore I won't even try to write, writing is not for me.
You see someone doing something beautifully and instead of naturally feeling inspired, you get detoured to feel disqualified.
As if there's only one way to do it with one valid style and one seat at the table. Presuming zero sum games on creative expression itself narrows down a lot of the potential outcomes and engaging processes one can get from exploring their own creativity.
Of course, some think they're not creative in the first place, the same people you notice daydreaming about solutions to problems that don't even exist yet.
Writing, it's an endless field where everyone gets their own patch of ground.
You'll never write like her, that's true. And she'll never write like you either. The goal was never to be her.
Find out what happens when you show up as yourself and put words on a page and then see what grows from there.
Employing logic is one of the most illogical things that we do.
We trust logic and use it to make sense of a chaotic world.
But then we take this beautiful double edged tool and use it to justify the most ridiculous conclusions.
I can string together perfectly reasonable-sounding premises and arrive at a destination that's completely insane.
For example, I don't have their resources. Money opens doors, so therefore my doors will stay closed.
Lol, the logic is airtight but conclusion is definitely nonsense.
I think with logic, we tend to forget that it is only as good as the assumptions we feed it.
If your starting point is flawed, your ending point will be too, no matter how perfectly you reasoned your way from one to the other.
Kind of like using a calculator to prove you can't do math.
a = b, b = c, therefore a = c.
This works great in mathematics and domains related to pure abstraction and formal systems.
It falls apart within analogical reasoning about human experience.
A similar one to the failure example of is I'm an introvert. Leaders are extroverts. Therefore I can't lead.
See how clean that looks?
Life isn't a set of equations where everything transfers neatly from one side to the other thanks to context, timing, luck, and a thousand other variables that refuse to stay constant.
I sometimes have a bit of a hard time trying to separate clean logical thinking from messy human reality.
But a ballpark middle ground is not trying to reduce one's potential to a logical proof. It's too limiting against the practical aspects of life.
In a way, one is writing their own problem and solving it as they go while also making up both the rules and the answers along the way.
Which way is that?
Well, that's for each to find out via gaining experience points.
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
Posted Using INLEO
This reminds me of a recent happening on Twitter a week ago. A very brilliant lady accused a popular tech figure of owning a burner account that was fond of tweeting depraved thoughts. How she got to that conclusion? Logic. She observed the style of writing adopted on the burner account and related it to that of the accused. To further make this claim sensible to her, she fed his tweets to ChatGPT alongside that of the burner account. And the output was, of course, 90% same person.
Now, a deeper dig into some of the old tweets of the burner account proved that logic to be incoherent, but she held firmly to the belief that both herself and the AI's evaluation of both accounts couldn't be wrong because she had trained it to give accurate outputs. So, I liken it to the examples you've given here. Sometimes, the end result of logic may not make any sense if the foundation is shaky. Other times, it's the results that get contaminated even when one starts out correctly. To see these things for what they truly are, people need to acknowledge the role their bias plays in the logic they strongly believe in.
Likewise, the assumption that one cannot excel in a certain role because they haven't been there before. It doesn't take the traditional logic of maths. What it takes is trial, and the logic of doing things over and again to attain perfection. Even if it means doing it a million times after failing.
Throughly enjoyed reading from you. Don't stop writing!
@topcomment
Oh, yes. Especially on social media, people can come up with patterns that they deem to reflect reality and find all sorts of data to back it up. I think sometimes, and when they start noticing they're wrong, that's when they double down to keep the charade instead of admitting they're wrong. In the online world, people's craziness can be amplified to unimaginable levels.
True, it's a form of escapism or taking the path of least resistance. At least try first, exert effort and then make a decision as opposed to making a decision on the fly based on sentiment, which itself has been tasked to keep one safe/on their comfort zone.
Thanks! And thanks also for stopping by, I appreciate it :)
Totally agree with your further submission. You're welcome too. Thank you for tagging my caomment as a good one.😊
Your reply is upvoted by @topcomment; a manual curation service that rewards meaningful and engaging comments.
More Info - Support us! - Reports - Discord Channel
Thank you!