though 1: dying is inevitable, and therefore not worth a great deal of attention. without the ability to affect levels of change on something there is less of a need to put much energy into it. this is all part of the base for existentialism, yes? philosophers were concerned with inevitable truths and religious categorizations of morals. folks who ended up "existentialist philosophers" were at first simply saying that some things are inevitable, and therefore not asking us to give them too much attention. this has always been my understanding, and largely i agree with it. death and dying are largely for metaphor, and less for dwelling.
thought 2: if an ache, or some sort of suffering, is as necessary in a human experience -- should the ache warrant as much attention as death? or should it warrant all of the attention, as a primary driver and influencer and motivator? or none? or some?
some - feels right today.
none - feels impossible.
all - feels like what it wants, if my ache experiences desire.
all of this is to say that i am trying (again) to have a better relationship with my ache, and possibly give it a little less control when it becomes entirely tyranical.
