We often fail to make changes because of the inexperience we have of a different situation. We tend to prefer the devil we know to the devil we don’t. Intuitively, this suggests our choices are limited to evils and that generally, the situation we are in is the lesser evil, by virtue of the experience we have of it. This is not healthy.

To remain in a state of evil or harmful circumstances because a different state is presumed to be more evil, due the vice of lack of experience, is to (metaphorically) give the Devil an easy time of it.

The individual or party that perceives the lesser evil to be the state worth preserving is also, not healthy.

I have often wondered why it is that the strategy of preferring the devil we know to the devil we don’t has such a hold over many of us. It has been suggested that it is primarily a manifestation of fear, yet fear has been observed to subside under the weight of exposure to the source of the fear. This suggests the longer one is in an evil or harmful state the more likely they are to feel less fearful of it. And the longer one is exposed to the demon of change the less fearful of that demon we become.

If this is true then it seems fear is not what holds us back. So what does? I suggest it is something deeper than fear. I suggest it is a kind of love for what is; a flawed form of amor fati as Nietzsche uttered. But I stress; a kind of love for what is; a kind of love that might be better described as amor faulty; faulty love.

Faulty love is a good if not perfect definition of what many that have chosen to leave the state of lesser evil refer to when questioned. Former members of a specific party will often cite that it was not just fear that held them back. There was a deeper root; a root that might be described as a desire to stay with that which is harmful because it is where one already is.  It is reminiscent of the adage that possession is nine-tenths of the law.

If we allow this to stand as a sign that we often stay where we are because it is 90% certain that is where we belong, then we might perceive an understanding as to why someone stays in a harmful situation. They are 90% certain that it is their rightful place; 90% certain that they are meant to be harmed. This is so sad. But it explains a lot.

Observing this from the outside, it is a logic which is fundamentally flawed. Something which is 90% certain is in actual fact; uncertain. To give certainty a probability rating is like giving water a wetness rating. Water is wet; full stop. Certainty is certainty; full stop. Uncertainty is uncertainty; full stop. Living our lives by percentages seems cruel.

It simply seems healthier to work from the premise that possession is not nine tenths of the law; it is an uncertain state in which to be, and an uncertain state is a living hell for those who are in it.

My feeling is that those who have this 10% uncertainty are far healthier than those who are members of the 90% certain party. This is because the 10% uncertain party are uncertain, whereas the 90% certain party are uncertain about their certainty. They are basically playing the odds with their own and other situations; lives!

That concerns me. It absolutely leaves me uncertain about my position in a situation in which my fellows might be gambling; with me as the ante. I suggest we all take a closer look at those who acknowledge their uncertainty. They be might be certain about something we only have a faulty love for.