2024-07-21
I haven't a particular topic for today, so I may take several and only expound on them loosely.
The context is, I have slept poorly. There were mosquitoes (at least five) in my room last night, as I left the window open inadvertently. I have also blundered heavily, failing to do well in terms of my goals for the week. So, I feel quite bad.
Happiness: I'm not sure on it. I have periods where I am in a good place, and others where a vice por poor sleep or something gets to me. I think I'm generally content of the moment, but often have this bad experience (don't know if there's a word for it: errvice could work as a name) and so almost regress for the day. If I can keep errvice at bay, I may stay happy in the sense of occupied by good pursuits for extended periods of time. Is happiness then merely a result of general good health, and good occupations that hold errvice at bay? In other words, is dissatisfaction merely the aggregate of many errvices, of an errvicious life?
The Monk: he leads a good life yet when exposed to the public takes to seeking approval. Gradually he engages in greater and greater vices, until he is betrayed by the Devil; each bad action, errvicious act, is an act that contributes to dissatisfaction. Or, do these acts arise from dissatisfaction? Or from errvice? Is desire an errvice? Generally, what is errvice? I defined it above as the sum of {errors,vice} though of course vice is poorly defined. Previously, I termed vice a regrettable act committed in non-lucidity. Is this an error? An error were rather: a regrettable act committed inadvertently. In this case, is the aggregate errvice not an act regretted committed either non-lucidly or inadvertently? Then, desire: an errvice? I will say desire, entailling thought, is an act. The state were desirousness.
Desire the act committed during desirousness: a state of non-lucidity...
So desire is an errvice, yet require dissatisfaction (and in turn, perpetuating such)... hence, for desire to begin, one must start of dissatisfied: a newborn comes out crying.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess it's nice and all to have a word to describe those actions that result in dissatisfaction, but the key I think is to avoid this. I think I''ve just done a sort of circular logic, like that French play in which the doctor explains the drowsiness inducing effect of opium by means of its natura saporifica.
Regardless, it seems valuable to me to know that happiness in some sense (beatitude?) necessitates a lack of this errvicious action. I must sleep well, not engage in vice, etc.
And if what leads to errvice is... error (try avoid I guess) or dissatisfaction, then almost errvice perpetuates itself. If I deal with the dissatisfaction, I may not require errvice, or seek it.
So, what do I get out of this? Last time, my definition of vice gave me the knowledge that vice arises from a state of non-lucidity. Now, I have expanded this to include errors, as a part of the wider category errvice. It appears (as with The Monk) that errvice breeds errvice: as such, I can take action in lucidity to stop errvice with a more lasting effect. I guess that's all: it's very little of value.
(Not 1000 words by a long shot.)
Have a good one.