We know to seek success is nonsense. The best is to be blank.
"Always, to be sure." Sometimes, there's no better than the advice of an expert. Especially for highly specialized nooks of society. But, even they can be outdone -- not by any standard one-uping, but by the greatest of them all: unlikely chance. Investments, medicine, indeed logic itself must give way to a larger force to a determined state yet unexpected. For, what is "expectation" but that which is most likely to occur, despite our strongest desires to the contrary. If you could catalog these events, with all the others, would they paint an unsurprising picture? What, in the scheme of all, merits a *gasp*.
These events take on less meaning allowing for a "deterministic" approach. As the Sun was to Ptolemy, so many things to us are misrepresented.
Then, where do we begin in our investigation? At the beginning? Any success depends on a realized governing notion of the fine particles and sub-particles of universes. So, at the end? Should we attend to each knowledge of man? Or do we attempt to knit a new reality to mirror our own? (Aren't these one in the same?) Perhaps for the infinitude of both, we ought to advance from the center. (Twice infinity (e.g. in "finity") is but in a single finiteness!) Disregard possible systematic inconsistencies and develop out of those problems which seem most egregious. (For, what are such inconsistencies but failures on our part? Is the universe broken??) Aye, descend those paths which seem most right.
And still, if that's the quickest route, I must ask: is it finite? are we presumptuous in assuming our uniqueness? and, in the limit of our ability to be wrong? Isn't "right" sort of individualistic within each of us? and yet, oughtn't there be one unifier?
Life is the longest conversation, only it's a sequence of questions. (Yet unended, thank God.)
These events take on less meaning allowing for a "deterministic" approach. As the Sun was to Ptolemy, so many things to us are misrepresented.
Then, where do we begin in our investigation? At the beginning? Any success depends on a realized governing notion of the fine particles and sub-particles of universes. So, at the end? Should we attend to each knowledge of man? Or do we attempt to knit a new reality to mirror our own? (Aren't these one in the same?) Perhaps for the infinitude of both, we ought to advance from the center. (Twice infinity (e.g. in "finity") is but in a single finiteness!) Disregard possible systematic inconsistencies and develop out of those problems which seem most egregious. (For, what are such inconsistencies but failures on our part? Is the universe broken??) Aye, descend those paths which seem most right.
And still, if that's the quickest route, I must ask: is it finite? are we presumptuous in assuming our uniqueness? and, in the limit of our ability to be wrong? Isn't "right" sort of individualistic within each of us? and yet, oughtn't there be one unifier?
Life is the longest conversation, only it's a sequence of questions. (Yet unended, thank God.)