Sticking to the middle path

I think tragedy does something deep to us, just like great success does something deep as well. I came upon this idea after reading a Slate.com columnist writing about the loss of his son ten years ago.

I am not cold-hearted and I don't lack empathy: but I think that we equally attach to both huge negatives and huge positives - I think we do both as a crutch, whether we acknowledge or ignore that we do. There is something hugely appealing in huge swings from normalcy.

For example, If I know that thirty years ago I was wronged so badly, then I think we use that as a benchmark, a step on a ladder, scaffolding, words.

It is a sign of the times that our lattices aren't based on sanity: fifty years ago our family did this honorable trait -- which still we do today! Instead, it is that fifty years ago this neurosis began, or this lucky event caused us to be here today.

Our "benchmarks" are not based on true accomplishments in the natural world, but instead intangible things like money or its lack.

So: I hope to stay in the middle, building honestly and earnestly, keeping aware of where I am and where we are. Isn't this the best choice? Respond!