Jargogled Impressions.

There are ways in which some people are able to mold the world to their liking. It’s a zest for active participation that not many consider as a viable or available path. It’s seen in vehicle drivers when they are edging themselves into a right turn by slowly poking into the street they need to enter. It’s those immigrants who wants to block future immigrants from entering a country because it may hinder their personal goals and plans. It’s seen in the demeanor one adopts when dealing with ambiguously selfish situations.

It’s the Winston Smith of the world versus the Gregor Samsa out there.

It’s the Katniss Everdeen versus Emma Bowery.

Or it’s just the Saul Bellowian males versus the rest.

It’s not very difficult to detect this in people, as it surfaces through the frame, they see their world with and in the voices they make heard. There exists this will, this molding-power so to say, in everyone. Which translates to zest in the different areas they get applied over.

There is an odd transaction-ability with their interactions. And a sense of pre-ordained entitlement that conflicts with the notion and moral of the commons.

Are some genes selfish but others’ aren’t?

Dichotomies are deceptive, but wildly useful tools to make sense of the world around us. And I particularly like macro/micro framing.

These people, the ones with zest, are often micro-oriented. They care about their immediate surroundings and their immediate morals. In so doing, they collect the depth and the detail necessary to strike when it’s hot. They read Ayn Rand to begin with and worship Nietzsche. They take turns debating and agree with Sartre and call themselves Kantians.

The others, the classic Dangling men or women, they are macro-bent. Macro-oriented individuals are those who focus on the bigger picture and broader societal impacts. They are often deeply connected with ecological and economic systems, understanding that their actions have far-reaching consequences. These individuals are typically aligned with the principles of sustainability and collective well-being. They see themselves as part of a larger ecosystem and strive to contribute positively to it.

They are often inspired by thinkers like Spinoza, who emphasized the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of understanding the world through a holistic lens. Freud’s contributions to psychology also resonate with them, as they appreciate the complexities of human behavior and the subconscious influences on our actions. Murakami’s works, with their blend of surrealism and deep human insight, provide them with a sense of belonging and understanding in a complex world.

It takes superhuman effort to mold the world if you find yourself in the latter bucket.

More often, people straddle the two realms or cross-over to the other side with the right (or wrong) set of conditions and life outcomes.

Success, for instance, can weave a thread between the two realms. Success means differently between the two – but they converge at a certain height. I wonder if the probability of (worldly) success is higher in one versus the other.

It’s no surprise that we should strive to be in the middle somewhere. And we are in most cases because our circumstances do not permit us to be otherwise. It’s hard to take a moral stance on something when you cannot sustain or make ends meet; so, we end up capitulating and drawing ourselves to the middle when we really want to pick one end of the pole.

 And that’s likely where zest takes a hit.

I have always wondered what makes people on the extremes so volatile and, for lack of a better word, zestful. There is an urgency and a missionary zeal to us when we pick a side. And that flavor, that ingredient is vital for an agentic life.

So, must you pick sides?

I guess the answer to that is, it depends. Picking sides works when you pick the winning one. There’s skin in the game. There is no free lunch. And with the hundreds of moments when decisions like these get taken, it’s important to orient yourself to gauge if you are fighting a losing cause.

We must pick our causes. And it becomes all the more salient the more you collect the years. Because things have a way of expanding and our propensity as human beings is to keep feeding the entropy till our bodies disintegrate. If we are to pick causes and choose where we want to be an extremist on, we are picking the causes we must be serious about. Being serious about something isn’t all that common as it might otherwise be construed to be. A lot of people are serious about things they say they are serious about, but when you really probe them, peek into their daily habits, and glance at their roving souls, you’d find a newfound appreciation for willpower because its all obfuscation on the back end. So much so that these people are able to fool their own selves into believing this lie, this deception, this conceit.

I am hitting a milestone over the next year, a decade rolling by. A worthwhile period that has defined boundaries and long enough horizon to reflect and dwell on. Causes I picked and the ones I let go of. Some knowingly, others unbeknownst. The zest that I brought to some, while others felt vacant, empty. Those that fell off the wagon soon enough, and those that stayed, only in turmoil and in spite. Still some, hidden away, neatly tucked inside the crevices of my consciousness. There, but not there. Hiding in plain sight, even from me. These are the ones to pay attention to, as we age. The ones that were the naturals versus enforced. The ones that stayed, resilient and unheard of, but still there, as if waiting their turn in the sun. Like a friend we did not exist, and who was listening to us all this time, hearing the grief, the laughter, the desperation, and the frustration. Listening, and waiting patiently for the tides to turn, and for it to reveal itself. If only, we continued to keep our eyes open to really see and sense.