Incomplete, ain't that an intriguing concept? I fell off the horse and am taking every step and leap and grasp to get back on that horse. It's tough. We all know it. Motivation wanes and wondrous feelings of certain death find their way into the confines of our most sacred mental space. These waning, perhaps waxing, protuberant feelings are all we have.

And yes, I do intend an all-encompassing statement, speaking in hyperbole is for the Trumps of the world, but to steal one from his playbook.... Nah, fuck that. That dude's crazy. All, meaning every feeling, describes the feelings in toto. Even if these are not the feelings we want, they may not even be the feelings we need. Experience comes in want and need, feelings flutter from the moment-to-moment experience.

I got nothing in this world. I'm not a doctor or a lawyer; I'm just a man in love with your daughter. Without context, these statements would likely be misconstrued. And for that reason, we add context and more fully elucidate.

Nothing in this context speaks to what we've been told the world has for us. It is the status, it is the possessions, it is the people, it is the external. I have everything within me. There is nothing that I can search the world for that I do not already possess. There are places in this world where those from every background meld into the same locale. The current locale of this writer's physical presence is such a place. We go into to the world to gain experience away from what is local to our lives. In other parts of the world, people live different lives. They have different goals and different desires. It is a selfish and naive thought to think we do not need the experience of other cultures and lives of others.

Once on a vacation, my eyes were opened to poverty in other portions of this floating prison. Using prison to describe this planet is too much and too negative. It comes with unintended, metaphoric connotations. Big words, fuck the bullshit. Let's get lay on this language. I am of the lay, never moving past the status of plebeian. By choice. Every day we make the choice to live, we make the choice to look with new eyes. We can be exposed to the paradigm of others, how they see the world, how their experience colors their view, how the future is limited by the past. This does not have to be the case. We can choose the lens, a different lens, a lighter or darker or colored or blacked-out lens. A choice is presented.

This choice thing is popping up over and over again. Is there something here? Does choice decide the future? In a biblical sense, this may be the freewill of man, given by the heavens to allow a different world to be created than the one we were given. There are no rules in this game. All is fair in love and war, and life is war and love in every moment. All is fair in life.

Sacrifice is not the same as loss. They have very similar results, that thing lost and that thing sacrificed are no longer present. Sacrifice is a choice, loss is not. We choose to sacrifice of ourselves. Loss is something being taken from us and does not stem from a choice (indulge me, I know this has more nuance than I've given it here). We sacrifice pieces of ourselves, we lose pieces also. The sacrifice is giving of ourselves to gain something. Let's give an example. Running with our biblical thing, a sheep can be sacrificed. Game of Thrones, a daughter can be sacrificed. These are sacrificed to gain something by giving something. Give it to another, sacrifice of our own possessions. War does this also, but we won't go there. Loss is losing something (real profound statement right here...). Yes, we need more, I agree. Loss is where a piece of ourselves is unwillingly taken away. A lamb is killed by the roving lion, a daughter is stricken with disease, a house is burnt by wildfire. Loss can be caused by the choice of another or not. There is possibly an element of choice, but certainly not our own choice. We can lose things we didn't know we had in the first instance.

Sacrifice of self and loss of self are not the same. The result is not the same. Although, objectively, they may look the same. You've lost something unless you voluntarily given it, which is sacrifice. When we give willingly, we sacrifice. When it is taken unwillingly, we lose. Give and take, that's where we have settled. Choice and not are where we have settled. The effects of sacrifice and loss are not the same.

We can sacrifice and hold our heads high. We can lose and be crushed by it. No one gets away from this fact. The choice comes back into play at the point of loss. Sacrifice is a choice prior, and loss entails a choice post. We choose our response to loss, and the response to sacrifice is also there. Loss does not involve a choice to lose. Sacrifice involves that choice to give, to lose by choice. That doesn't even make sense. We cannot choose to lose something. We choose to sacrifice. We've discussed this one. Moving on....

Beating a dead horse was an idiom that I misunderstood for so many years. I used to think it meant we were trying to kill the horse, but the horse was already dead. Beating that horse will not make any progress because the wasted effort is beyond what can be done. My version means something different than the intended meaning. We can't kill what is already dead, no matter the effort. But now, I understand the idiom's intended meaning. We want the horse to do something for us, do the work that horses do. We smack that horse with a stick to make it work. When the horse is dead, no amount of beating will cause it to do work. It is a futile effort. Both versions are futile effort that will result in nothing. The effort is wasted. The goal of the beating is definitely different in the versions. Where the fuck is my head? I want to kill the horse, and others want to make it work. We won't go down this road today. We'll stop with the recognition that my view of the world is not the same as others.

I am incomplete. Will I ever be complete? That pregnant question is giving birth to an obvious answer. No. I will never be complete. Can I sacrifice more of myself to achieve results? One may give of his morals and integrity to achieve a result. Once given, these cannot be regained. I say this to you with sincere intentions, know what you are truly sacrificing. Know the consequences. If you don't know the consequences, you may be surprised when you finally know what was given. As a note of grammar, giving is always away; give away is a redundant statement. We can give, and in every instance, we give away, unless otherwise specified. We can give to ourselves. Redundancy is unappreciated around here, but I am likely the most guilty of such statements.

We've descended into pointless conversation. Am I crazy? Yes. Am I sad? Yes. Am I aware? Yes. Am I completely aware? No. Am I a drunk? No. Am I a lost soul with no direction? Yes.

A story of fish:

Two young fish were swimming along. They had just left school after their last class of the day. The final class was geography. The two fish swam back home. They are neighbors, they are good friends. Each is smiling on their way back home. They know they will see each other in the morning, and they have confidence is each other. They believe in this friendship. They know geography, at least a little, because of taking classes on the subject. As they swim along, they see, in the distance, an older fish approaching them. This fish looks chiseled from a long life. He is much older than them. The older fish approaches, closer with every flap of its fin and they equally as close with the flapping of their tails. The older fish has a friendly look. They discuss how they may have changed course if that fish had an unfriendly look. The conversation moves away from the geography class and to this older fish. When the two young fish begin to pass the older fish, the older fish begins to speak. His greeting is simple, and his words do not extend beyond this greeting. The older fish says, "Good afternoon. How's the water, boys?" The two young fish give a simple reply, "Good afternoon." As the older fish moves farther from the young fish, when the older fish is out of earshot, the two young fish turn to each other with a look of confusion. They take a moment before speaking, the look of confusion remaining on their little fish faces. Speaking on top of one another, they both ask the same question of the other, "What the fuck is water?!"

Will we take for granted that which is essential to life? Will we be so blind to the world that we cannot see the thing that surrounds us? Will we discuss the geography of the world without understanding what is here all the time? Will we go in search of what we already possess? Will we recognize that we already have it? Will the life-sustaining aspects be dismissed because of unawareness? Will we make the choice to understand? What choice will we make? Intentional, willful blindness, or searching curiosity? Do not go in search of diamonds that are present in our back yard. The world contains nothing more than what we already have. It is more of the same. Searching will show us this, but was the search necessary in the first place?

This is Learning Made Hard.