I had constructed multiple thoughts before I was sitting in front of this document, but now that I am seated, a sense of nervousness presides. I can't recollect what it was that I felt was so important to share, but the idea was to express whatever was on my mind.

Nonetheless, another thought for the time being: A vast sea of thoughts constantly provides path for action, but something prevents that from happening. A simple logic that's afraid of the fall. I wish to deny it, but that is what it is. 

A simple fall. It feels instinctive. Knowing there is importance and precedence that should be given to more important tasks than risks, something chooses to block activity from happening the way I want it. Given the situation, I could say I am not afraid of anything, but that lies wholly untrue. I am afraid. 

But is it me being scared that's stopping me? No. It's the outcome of the fall. What requirement do I have to take a risk? And if I have no requirement, do I have a need to take it? "No." That's what I tell myself. I feel comfortable in my own situation, hiding like a sheep for the comfort. But there is no reason to have this comfort. There is no reason to anything. 

An argumentative approach would be to say that reasoning constitutes everything in one way or another, and I agree. But this is no argument. It simply is fact. It has reason in the eye of everyone, and at the same time, it has no explanation to it. So without explanation, is it worth the ordeal? I wonder. 

If you come across this story on Amazon, it's taken without permission from the author. Report it.

Working comprises of moving a brick from one place to another. The activity of moving the brick is allowed, a variable of activities are provided which constitute of potential reason. But in the grand scale, no explanation for the set of activities to take place is given. So why should they take place? Simply because of decision? And if it is so, then does this decision prove valid? What is the why of things? The reason behind the reasoning. 

The brain is said to be a set of neurons and pulses echoing randomly. But on what basis? What decides the course of my activity? What truly constitutes of, me? You could say that this part of the brain or that part of the brain does it, but the essence cannot be defined by the logic of biology. That is what I have come to observe. It does not give answer to the why of things, but simply delays and derails by saying it is inevitably simple and a beating train. So what if it is? Why is it the one to decide? Why is it, that I feel like I control only a part of it? Why is it that I feel some activity must be done, if in truth, I am in control to do the said activity? Am I in control if I cannot even constitute of what is to be done and what is not to be? Doesn't the whole concept of regret indicate that the action done was not what was wanted? Then why was it so? What controls me, more than I do?

All I am trying to forge is questions; questions that need to be asked and answered. We study the physical too much and relate that to the psychological, when it is not so. Action does not come through a series of neurons, it is undoubtedly more complex. I am no doctor to say so, but it is the very reason that I am not a doctor that I believe so. My beliefs do not align with the logic of saying our actions are completely with reason and with control, of what we define to be us. Because there is no true definition of any of these terms, and the vagueness leads to the need to answer by thoughts of the mind.