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.
