There is a level of comfort that I have not experienced in the past, which I suppose some may call complacency, and perhaps they are right. My friend referred to me yesterday as having "everything I want", which was both interesting and flattering, as I had never been mentioned in such a manner before. It reminds me of something that I have both read and thought on my own in the past: having everything and wanting nothing are very similar states of being. Unfortunately for the man who wants everything, something will always be denied him. When he finds one love, another will appear, more forbidden and equally as tempting. When he acquires some large possession, such as a house or a car, he will only see larger, more comfortable ones that do not belong to him. While a person who wants everything might surely be happy if he attains everything, that possibility is virtually impossible.
On the flip side, wanting nothing (or little) is much simpler than having everything (or much). There is less to manage, less to lose or destroy by some freak accident. One is much more mobile when every desire is in easy reach. I suppose I could walk along that train of thought for quite some time, but all the arguments are fairly obvious. I state again for the record: in all my experience of parting with possessions and unrealistic goals, I have not felt a lingering loss, aside from the temporary pain of having initially severed them from my life. I am "lighter", happier, and in generally better condition for having removed the physical and emotional baggage from my life. I am rather enjoying the ability to choose my direction each day without a pressing fear of the unknown future.
That said, I am losing my concentration as I notice Adelia stirring in her crib from the baby cam; time to wake her up and go play in the kiddie pool :)
3 comments:
I wasn't talking about your possessions, bro. Your house could burn down and you'd still have everything you want.
Not all of us think in possessions. If that's what you're talking about, other than my gun, I currently have everything *I* would ever want too, discounting temporary entertainments like new games or whatever.
No, possessions were the last things on my mind.
If I may make a suggestion with your OT, if I were to do a 100 Things Challenge, I wouldn't count anything necessary to work or whatever. The 100 Things Challenge sounds more like luxury items that you don't, strictly speaking, need to have to live. While all clothing technically is unnecessary, it's like saying the parachute is technically unnecessary when you're jumping out of a plane.
For example, for me, I wouldn't count my socks, underwear, Wal-Mart polos, or other parts of my Wal-Mart uniform. I would, however, count my Star Fox T-shirt I won 18 years ago: it's faded, and way too small for me, but I keep it as a keepsake simply because it's one of the few moments in my life I actually won a contest based on skill.
As you imply, if the point of the 100 Things Challenge is to reduce your clutter and find what's actually meaningful to you, then anything related to your job shouldn't really count in my opinion (or at least count as one "set") because having it isn't really meaningful. But if you've got a "favorite hat" or "that one pair of pants that I just can't get rid of," THEN you would probably want to count it. :)
Just my opinion, of course.
There is definitely a bit of freedom. One of the more popular people to do it set his daughter's doll collection as completely off limits. But the spirit of the challenge stands. I am finding freedom in consolidating and getting rid of things, and even after a couple YEARS of doing it, I'm STILL finding things that I rarely or never use. People just tend to have way more than they have the time or energy to take notice of.
True that. I've still got crap I haven't unpacked from boxes from when I moved into my apartment, what, six years ago?
Heh, the captcha for my comment this time is "botch."
Post a Comment