I strive, I meet resistance, I give up.
…or…
I strive, I meet resistance, I persist.

I strive, I fail, I suffer.
…or…
I strive, I succeed, I strive.

I strive less, or more; I choose.

Then:
I strive, I fail, though I succeed.
…and…
I strive, unheard, from my given place.

When success is failure:
Externally,
I strive less, unheard, from my given place.
…or…
I strive more, unheard, from my given place.

When success is failure:
Internally,
I strive less, angry, from my given place.
…or…
I strive more, defiant, from no place.

Me:
I strive, I fail, I suffer, angry, then defiant, I choose…
…no place.

No place is as good as any place; and better than a given place. If I am both tangible and intangible, the tangible may have to settle in a given place, but the intangible is not thusly confined; though too often, I make it so.

I am both tangible and intangible.

I believe the above is a more accurate representation of reality than:
I strive, I succeed, I celebrate.
I celebrate, I strive, I succeed.
I succeed, I celebrate, I strive.

For some, delusion is reality.

For everyone, to strive is reality.

I believe,
…to fail is inevitable
…to suffer is inevitable
…to choose is a privilege
…to seek a place is natural
…to be assigned a place is inevitable
…to be angry is to understand reality
…to be defiant is more productive
…to succeed is momentary, fleeting, essentially inconsequential
…to celebrate is human
…to celebrate success is delusional.

What is success? How is its measurement established? By written doctrine? Rules? Laws? Custom? Expectations? Imaginary constructs? Is this process subjective? Regardless, once parameters are established, can success be measured objectively? By a numerical accounting of Wealth? Power? Effort? To measure objectively means I can look at a fact, (such as total worth or number of subordinates or number of children or number of wives or number of hours spent striving or number of new rules written down or number of rules enforced) and compare that fact to the facts of other individuals and/or to the pre-established parameters; and then simply rank or categorize the degree of success. Or can success only be determined subjectively? By Goodness? Justice? Adherence? Loyalty? To measure subjectively means I must first define the standard of measurement according to the pre-established parameters, realize that my standard (for example, for Goodness) will be defined differently than the definitions from so many others, recognize that from parameters to standards and back and forth I am creating layers upon layers of subjectivity; and then use personal judgement (influenced by so many factors) to assign a numerical value or score. And even after all this, we will not agree on a consistent definition of success. Success is perception. Success can be anything. This is why I believe, to succeed is momentary, fleeting, essentially inconsequential. This is why I believe, to celebrate success is delusional.

For me:
To succeed is to be heard
…and…
To succeed is to disagree
…and…
To succeed is to argue, rationally and respectfully

Celebration is a distraction

Yet failure is always there; solid; certain. I can always count on finding an insufficiency; a misstep; a deficit.

Failure drives.