my life according to wiki

so I realized that I haven't posted anything substantial for a while, and since I can't sleep, I thought I might attempt to do that, now. I think what I should strive for is a "say it or don't give any trace of it at all" system. I think that's a better way to do something. Perhaps I'll go through my methodical way of doing something....let's start with wikipedia...

I think that life would be a lot better without these and that a permanent place ofimportance is perfectly represented by wiki still, and can only do so much for the human mentality.

I think that safety is silly and:

It's important to realize that safety is relative. Eliminating all risk, if even possible, would be extremely difficult and very expensive. A safe situation is one where risks of injury or property damage are low and manageable

Why? Simply because that expectation is not possible...therefore we fall into disappointment which, disappointingly, wikipedia does not have an article for.

If any individual in any relationship has a habit of doing this to people, then it si rather difficult for a relationship of Equivalent Exchange to exist between the two. Therefore, it is not a good life philosophy to adopt in the way that I'm expecting it to be, which is the expectation that the way I view, treat, and behave around a person will be reciprocated perhaps not in the same way but at least in some equivalence in the semantic sense that "that the sets a and b coincide, that they are identical. This does not mean that the concepts have the same meaning" This cannot work why? In the definition of the logical process itself, it's possible that the two things will not have the same meaning. This gives the individuals too much individual freedom to rationalize their side of the exchange as equivalent to the other's. If you are on the short end of the stick, this leads to constant disappointment that you have to rationalize over and over again. If the individual is one that puts safety (in this case emotional/mental) as a top priority then it will be further debunked by the fact that safety does not exist in constant disappointment, especially if the individual set up the safety priority as a result of some insecurity. This can be defined as "lack[ing] confidence in their own value and capability, trust in themselves or others, or has fears that a present positive state is temporary and will let them down and cause them loss or distress by "going wrong" in future."

So the cure is to first develop trust, which is not always possible if one defines safety as a criterion in trust. Do you see how this does not work in any logical sense of the word? In order to trust, one must have abandoned the sense of insecurity in order to believe in the safety that someone offers and if you need trust to believe in the safety and you need safety to trust, how does that work!?
____________________________________

Let's move on to the subject of secrets where:

Humans attempt to consciously conceal aspects of themselves from others due to shame, or from fear of rejection, loss of acceptance, or loss of employment. On a deeper level, humans attempt to conceal aspects of their own self which they are not capable of incorporating psychologically into their conscious being

Let's avoid the former argument and go to the latter. I want to know the point at which a secret is no longer a solution to the problem, but has become a problem itself. I think it's when the desire to manifest whatever it is interferes with the conscious life. It's good not to have a desirous secret, especially one to yourself. Then, if one is unable to incorporating it into conscious life, then shouldn't one want to know why so that the problem can be rectified? As a Buddhist, I don't think I should have desires....or perhaps that is misguided? I think I believe that:

for in the Phaedrus the soul is guided by two horses, a dark horse of passion and a white horse of reason. Here passion and reason, as in Aristotle, are also together. Socrates does not suggest the dark horse be done away with, since its passions make possible a movement towards the objects of desire, but he qualifies desire and places it in a relation to reason so that the object of desire can be discerned correctly, so that we may have the right desire.

Then in this situation, can anyone tell me what the "right" desire is? Is it the desire to keep it at bay until you've found a way to successfully incorporate it even if it means that might not happen due to your limited capabilities? Or is it to unleash it upon the unsuspecting world towards that goal of freeing oneself? Freedom...I also believe that freedom has to be necessarily sacrificed sometimes in order to achieve something or fully enjoy something to its entirety. Some things are better that way, eh? I think personal conflict arise when one needs to be more free to be able to enjoy something to its entirety, but in order to ensure that one has the potential to enjoy that same thing free from worries one would have to sacrifice freedom. Freedom is worst when there are more than one kinds of freedom interfering with each other.

I think this is where my thoughts and inquiries end for now.