fanaticism.

The idea of getting it right every single time is not realistic. Too much pressure to make the right choice at every step makes us frustrated and filled with angst... and we are more likely not to make any of the choices we ambitiously intended at all.

This is where so many doctrines are flawed; they don't function corroboratively with pragmatism. Religion, environmentalism, science, policy... strive to be louder and more important than their ism peers, and in so doing, become campaigns of hysteria. They lose their stalwart integrity and become gritty and desperate. And as they take on this nature we, as humans, agnize the ridiculousness of abiding by every rule at every step... and most unfortunately, rather become cowed by our own fanaticism than turn to pragmatic innovation of our behavior.

If we wait for the perfect leader, nothing will ever get done. If we set out to be immediately flawless, we are doomed to fail. Deliberation is what gives integrity to a campaign, and holds it shy of fanaticism. But we are hungry for a coherent package of rules... and deliberation encourages clauses of exceptions, which teeter precariously on the stilts of innovation with which we have not yet learned to walk confidently. Why are we so pusillanimous of breaking the rules in the name of pragmatism? It doesn't seem physically plausible to be so entirely unaccepting of philosophical integration without becoming dysfunctional - without undermining our precious capacity to critically assess the balance of things.

I'm rather doomed to be a little pragmatic, and not tied to the rigidity of certain campaigns. Avoid some things generally. Pay attention. Be cognizant that I can't do everything.