I feel compelled to (once again) visit this James Baldwin quote: "People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster."

This week I am referring to me. In a nutshell, I am struggling with conflicting goals - On the one hand I want to pursue unattainable ideals, but on the other hand I also need to recognize/acknowledge the fact/reality that they are unattainable; and then if I decide to continue that pursuit I must find a way to reconcile it (the pursuit) with certain, current realities.

So far, my attempts at reconciliation have amounted to the solace offered by a Kantian division of experience and transcendental reasoning. The difficulty with this thinking is exactly that; mere thoughts do not change the experience. Thoughts may alter the interpretation of an experience, but (I believe) should only do so temporarily to help us through that experience. If an adverse set of circumstances persist for a longer period of time I will possibly reach a point where I feel martyred and/or helpless, which could begin a downward spiral. There are some that can shut their eyes to reality and innocently proclaim that everything is rainbows and lollipops, but due to my strong belief in uninhibited truthfulness to oneself, I cannot ignore pain or adversity. So if I feel any hint of martyrdom/helplessness, and I refuse to play mind games with myself, then it appears that it is time to change my circumstances. But ...

What if we add a parallel track of pursuing a related but separate 'Ideal' that would be impacted (or possibly derailed) by changing the adverse circumstances as described in the paragraph above? How do I choose between improving empirical experience and pursuing a 'Higher Good'?

I suppose if the reality becomes debilitating then the decision is made to change the circumstances, thus potentially sacrificing the pursuit of the interdependent 'Higher Good'. I have explored the possibility of substituting a different 'Higher Good' (for the one sacrificed) that would be more compatible with the new set of circumstances, but that feels like apples and oranges; (but may still feel better than the complete loss of a 'Higher Good'). So is the solution that's left, to find a new way of accomplishing the same 'Higher Good'? With new circumstances, is that even possible? In some cases it may be, but it seems unlikely; (especially in this specific instance). So if it is not possible, I am back to choosing between improving empirical experience and pursuing a 'Higher Good'.

New Thought - Perhaps what I deem the 'Higher Good' is not actually the 'Higher Good'. Perhaps the 'Higher Good' is actually the empirical experience. Obviously this is not a 'new' thought (in the history of philosophical thought) and may make perfect sense to some, but for me it is counter-intuitive. Nonetheless, let me think about it ...

Why are we in this world and entrusted with individual humanity? It is obviously meaningful and important, but should it trump pursuit of unattainable Perfections? Thus far I have maintained that the unknowable should have the upper hand, but in this specific set of circumstances my growing ineffectiveness is beginning to impact effectiveness on other tracks, thus driving me to consider giving up / giving in to empirical considerations. Is this a hint that my experiential humanity is on a par with or perhaps occasionally superior to transcendental reasoning and the pursuit of Perfections? Or ...

Following the analogy of parallel tracks, perhaps this struggle is due to the merging of these two tracks and the sudden road rage inherent in this scenario. If my experience has become an obstacle, my pursuit of a 'Higher Good' is pissed. Road rage is a result of depersonalization, so perhaps the solution here starts with respect. I need to back off and re-evaluate options. I need to give experience its due and concede that (at least for the moment) it is on even footing (the same track) as my higher Ideal. I need to figure a way to either widen the road or construct a new parallel track to avoid road closure and allow for concurrent progress.

As I am wont to do, I have painted a defined, conceptual picture, but is it theoretical BS (mind games) or are there practical applications? I'm not sure I know (or will know for a few days or weeks) the answer to this question as it applies to this situation, but these thoughts have helped me to see that for maximum effectiveness these tracks should be separate and distinct. I have been laboring under the false conception that they were distinct and separate, and perhaps I needed to join them. But no - That is the problem - like Siamese twins I need to separate them and hope they both survive.

So carrying these thoughts a bit further, I am proposing change that if not executed perfectly could kill, maim, or permanently scar a 'Higher Good' and/or a current reality. Obviously both of these tracks are important to me or I wouldn't struggle so. In my mind the transcendental will always trump the empirical, therefore it seems the least invasive change would be to make the conflicting reality less important; or the 'Higher Good' more important. I believe this could be actual change and not just interpretation or mind games. It makes sense to start there. And if I am successful, it makes some sense that it may end there as well. I will see ...