Perhaps an elitist or arrogant thought (and if it’s not, then the process leading up to it certainly is, as is the resulting chain): the people that you surround yourself with help determine your future path.

And by this I mean: the more successful the people around you, the more likely you will be successful. And not just riding on coattails (though that never hurts); it’s an issue of drive, ambition, having a pace runner on the track to keep you moving.

Surround yourself with people who aim low, and odds are good that you will find it more acceptable to do the same.

Surround yourself with escapists, and you will more likely follow them down those dangerous paths.

So: can you adjust this by being aware of the fact? Can you split your time between ambitious and lazy people, knowing the effects, and force yourself to ignore the lazy influence? Can a limited dose of intelligence and drive overpower an equal amount of immaturity?

I wonder this for my own sake, as well as for that of others.

And is it wrong to hope to influence others well? Or is that bordering on messianic tendencies?

—

It’s amazing how much can be understood about human dynamics, the hidden backgrounds of relationships, if you pay attention through your life.

With just a little bit of the participants’ histories and a glimpse of observation of the way they interact, it’s frightening how much I understand things that are so totally foreign to me.

And so I am left with the question of whether to leave it alone and let it ride, or to try to do something about it. And if the latter, what? How deeply do I get involved?

Or do I stick with my pact of “non-involvement in potential drama?” That seems like the safest way, in the long run, but is it the right thing to do? Do I havea responsibility to do otherwise?

When does helping someone who needs it (but has not asked for it) become interference?

—

My ship is about due to come in, creatively & financially. I tend toward thinking that I haven’t been active enough in shifting things from free to profitable, but I know that’s not the case (when I stop and think about it). So that leaves me with the knowledge that, way too often, I’m being too nice, too giving.

But shouldn’t that balance out eventually? Isn’t that the way karma works?

Why do I believe so firmly in karma when it involves balancing the negatives that I’ve created or caused, but not so much so when it should mean that I’m gaining from it?

Le fucking sigh.

—

Why are abnormal things bad?

Deviant sexual behavior is not necessarily bad, right (right-wing morons can take comments to someone who cares)? It’s not practiced by the majority, but if both parties consent, then it’s okay… right?

And some mental issues are by nature bad — depression, for instance. But what about mania? It’s not a painful condition to experience (though the after-effects can be; but that can be controlled through self-awareness, at least in my case). Schizophrenia is scary, but I’ve known a few mildly schizoprhenic people who were okay with it (these, obviously, were more of the grandeur than persecution varieties).

So why do we insist on calling things that are different by negative labels? Codependent relationships — or for that matter, relationships that are founded on something other than what “experts” tell us is right — are “unhealthy.” Different ways of thinking are branded “abnormal” (not inherently a negative term, but often connoted as such) or “weird” or “fucked up.”

Why can’t different just be different? Why do we (and I admit to inclusion, though I’m trying hard to change that) insist on judging and condemning things that are not in our nature or experience instead of learning and experiencing?

—

If I didn’t hold most philosophy students in such low regard, I would have gotten a graduate degree in the subject.

Which would qualify me to do nothing more than verbally masturbate for money.

Now that I put it that way, it doesn’t sound so bad. Although, as Chance and I both like to say, ” Good work — *if* you can get it.”