When we talk about fulfilment; we talk about many descriptors — zoomed out. InIn the parlance of design they are termed as the typology. As we detail and explicate we realise that these descriptors are the very core of the form that fulfilment takes. This form is what we study here. We study the form so that we achieve fulfilment in a form that is lasting. In the first batch we study the descriptors that detail for us the characteristics which are necessary to know in order to formulate any blue-print of the phenomenon of fulfilment. Characteristics like ‘when’ and ‘how’. Now we have understood fulfilment to be having two states. A pleasant state and also an unpleasant state.

Because when a person believes they are fulfilled — they also become opposed to the idea of life that takes form serendipitously. Anything can happen so neither does it make sense to be in a pleasant mood neither does it make sense to be in an unpleasant mood. One will surely turn into the other with time spent.

Pleasant as in a fulsome state of being. Unpleasant as in as something that begets nostalgia or an imbalanced state of being — but one that is resolvable. Pleasant is not pleasant forever and unpleasant is also on the path of pleasure. Nothing is a fixed state which can be decided as a state which is for keeps. These are states in transition. Pleasant/unpleasant are situations which have qualities attached to them. Such qualities fade over time and become the other — pleasant becomes the unpleasant and also the other way round.

So the typology of fulfilment is not just full of the parameters of the ‘how’ and ‘when’, but also the details of who with and under the tutelage of whom. When events happen, they cannot be denied, they have to take their course. Whether they take us towards a pleasant or an unpleasant end depends on numerous factors. How — what settings does an event happen under? What is the context and what is the platform? When — what time and progression leads to a particular event? The progression of the event will also lead to something called the ‘temporal context’. What happened before and what happened next bears a lot of significance to the fact of the happening.

Who are the instigators? Who has been the inspiration or the supporters of the event taking shape? These two questions bear a lot of weight in deciding the pleasant/unpleasant nature of the fulfilment and the framing of the event.

Is it a recurring event (with a certain interval) or a one time event. Does the event happen as it is or in a certain guise? Adopting any guise will only ease the happening and response of an event. The question of ‘why’ or ‘why not’ will place any event in a background context which frames the event with the causative factors clearly and sharply.

When is it the right time? When is it the wrong time? We can keep puzzling about these questions forever, we will keep struggling to find the answer. Because the right and wrong time do not exist.
What exists are brackets of time without any tags that describe the quality of experience they offer. The tags are provided by us depending on how the moments have been for us in the past. Somebody’s heaven might be somebody else’s hell.

There is no notion of good and bad time for a particular narrative/story or event. And we know that now. There are events and there are outcomes: that’s it. Establishing event outcomes as good or bad is trying to associate different events with different qualities of experience. And that just can’t be done. We have repeated a sentence twice over just to see if they can be twisted over. We have discovered that they can’t. They remain false either way you read them. This is the big discovery that I want to share with all of you readers.

This might be one notion of right and wrong time and it has been forced to be false. Some other notion might exist. There might be an inverse reaction or a random reaction between events and the quality of events that they offer. We might have to find this out experimentally.

So, we setup different experiments. One to observe if events and the reading of the quality of experiences they offer are linked randomly and the other to check whether they are linked inversely. Both experiments bring in false results. As in there is neither an inverse relation nor a random relationship between events and their consequences.

Where do we go from here? There is neither a right time nor a wrong time to do what is demanded of us. This means that wars can’t be won or lost if they are started or ended at a particular time. To win wars, they have to be fought fearlessly. Conversely to lose wars they have to be fought fearfully. So much we have learnt.

But why do wars have to be won or lost? Why can’t they be just surrendered? Humans discovered that their spirits are purer if they live with the consequences of surrender. A surrendered soul does not have an ego that got what it wanted. ‘Free will’ is not a topic under discussion at their homes. For they don’t believe in the auspiciousness of times — so they do not believe in good omens or bad omens.

Omens are superstitions. They are not causal factors. Whether a war is lost or won depends on which side has less fear and more a sense of disbelief. One can win a war if one does not believe in them. Just like ordinary life. Disbelief is a potent weapon. If you tell a war that you do not believe in it, it will not have any fear that it can project on you. It will become a docile event that does not have any power over you.

How do we eventually find or realise fulfilment? We and our wandering selves are constantly in search for closure but we did not get it. Parts of our minds remain behind wherever we go. How do we avoid this?
We can duplicate our body to be able to make experience a two part narrative. One part creates explosions and the second part cleans the debris. The cleaning part’s rather a careful process. One has to know what is waste and what is just caked up with explosion debris. If one makes the wrong decision, a very delicious part of the experience is denied consumption. The decision is wrong to begin with because it doesn’t allow the core to be consumed. When the decision is right, and the core is consumed there are no more confusion. Confusion between the value of the core of the decision and the taste of it. Often the taste is the value. They cannot be differentiated. So fulfilment is often about having the confidence to chew on the decision — the event that it represents. To dwell on, chew on the decision and the event that it represents one needs to be entirely present. In the depth of experience resides the urge to bite. Biting involves the entire being to be focussed in the mouth — on the tips of the teeth. The very jagged end of the teeth. These have an evolutionary purpose of tearing into materials. Materials like the outside skin of fruit. Not animal skin, just fruit skin.

Tearing into what and when is a controversial topic. To prove that animals are not the natural food of humans, vegans say that our teeth cannot tear into animal skin at all. Whereas the other side uses precisely the same argument to make the opposite case. Which case is true? In such cases the isolation of truth is almost impossible.

Because once we establish something as natural, it gets established as infallible. It is not yet true. But it is infallible. Nature is still cruel, how can it be true?

In the case discussed above — humans can most certainly be cruel. They do not even have to try hard. But they can also be kind. Even that need not be proved. It is matter of plain speak. The being ‘natural’ is a problem. Of all natural beings, even the ones closest to nature need a reason to lose hope completely. To subscribe to anger fully and to be an utter nihilist, some amount of hope is necessary. To give it up fully, means to have no adherence to scale, to limits, to logical finitude, means to fully be free of layers of cruelty. And this the truly the only way of living. A life in which we are not a risk to anyone else… Like we are to our siblings and friends.

Humans are free to live any way they choose. At least they think so. From reverie to reverie. From waking day to waking day. The contents of our reveries is not free to fix. But other things are.

When fulfilment is about to happen, multiple possibilities of change generate conflict. This conflict is between different possible futures. Some futures arrive and some futures remain potential. Between many potential futures, conflict emerges. The kind of conflict which is lethal. It can lead to an event or it can lead to death. We are in awe of such conflicts. When they turn their lethal face — then force shies away. Force is worth so much drama that there are kinds of forces that compete to clash and compete. In the absence of force, perfectly able conflicts wither away. We have sceneries of conflicting situations in which because of the lack of force the situations that were going to flare up, wither away.

And this evokes sadness. Similar to the sadness evoked by wilting flowers when they had already promised to bloom. At stake here is the emotion of promise and the spirit of potential. When these two fade, gloom rises. The atmospherics of gloom is very nasty. It exudes sadness and desolation. Without gloom, the world is between states of action but tilting neither way. It is between promises — broken and kept. When promises are kept the world seems to be safe. It seems to have a glow that can only be sensed as a warm and fuzzy feeling. But if promises are not kept, the world is a dark and scary place. So scary that it can crumble at any point. We deal with such worlds, worlds which can crumble at any moment. Such worlds are not to be believed in. We focus in our stories on the conflict between worlds in which promises are kept and the ones in which they are not.

Conflicts also describe how in particular situations it does not really matter how deeply intense the conflict threatening the world is. In such a case, a conflict can simply emerge between different conditions in the story’s arc. The arcs can be conflicted to each other. Instead of smoothly progressing, one can be progressing and the other regressing.

It is not possible to decipher what is going wrong and then we have a prime example of of a world stuck in a disarray. Sometimes this disarray is functional and sometimes procedural. These two words just can’t be weaned away from each other and in the constant cackle of their jittery existence they live that way.
For this text to have some reasonably stability, we will frame these two words here. A functional disarray arrives to a chaotic way of being through failure. A procedural disarray arrives to a chaotic way of life through malfunction.

Sometimes conflicts emerge from each other only to merge back in an instant. This situation is called volatile — they are stable and non-volatile for a very short period of time. What do we do if conflicts are duplicitous and fake. If they show something else and are something else.

We will sound the alarm. We will raise some hue and cry and we will try to call some attention to the fact that we are being cheated.

When there is less supply than there is demand, situations and their value escalate. On what basis is the value of entities (multiple entities form situation) formed? On the basis of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. These factors can be listed here. The factors are: weight, nature of presence, nature of absence, gender and gist. If we expand each factor here it will take up some space. Let’s do that.

We are talking about demand and its elasticity. The factors that define why demand stretches and contracts can be taken up one by one. Weight: this doesn’t just describe how heavy or how important something is, it also indicates how much displacement (air or water) value it has. Nature of presence: what is the difference in how something is felt or experienced. Nature of absence: what is the difference in how something’s absence is felt. Gender: this factor describes how something is related to — which social values are extended to it and which not. Gist: how can something be summarised or how can its meaning be elucidated.

The more the supply of something the less the value of its demand. This is the situation with all commodities and their valuation. Why is this so? This is so because things are valued on the basis of how much of it is there in the world of materials and presences. We started looking at the reverse of this situation at the beginning of this text. Now we are looking at the value of demand when the supply is more. Supply and demand is measured in terms of the value it attracts. Some materials such as waste attract value for taking it away. But that is rare.

Supply can also be that which is present in a limited amount. It is this limited supply that is referred to here. At times, the supply concept can be wanting when the it is cited. And at times it can be thoroughly rich. The concept is multicoloured and multidimensional. The concept goes round and round and is recycled time and again.

Supply is limited when time is gasping. But time is not always gasping. There are times when it is shrugging. Reluctant, queer and splendid. Why queer? Moments are accelerated so that they are slipshod. Supply is source sometimes and source is supply times. These words intermingle and it is alright if they do. Words intermingling is the same as relationships intermingling. My wife is your wife? No. Your wife is my wife? No.

Fond memories are not always fond. Sometimes they are risky. Sometimes they are ludicrous. And they are born still. These transactions are all finally shortchanged. There is breath and there is short breath and there is deep breath. And each has its meaning, position and style.

If not then what does it all add up to? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In the swagger of our moods, we let things pass. But we should not let. Because in the swagger of our moods our words can become monuments…