Are you certain? Regarding the addict, the action is deemed good by the actor at that point in time. The observer says it is not good because if the observer where present they would act to stop the addict (be it someone else or their future or past self). The addict has been malformed to act in discord with their own well being by habit, perception, environment, beliefs, etc., but the action certainly occured because that which was in control deemed it good.

Interpretation and infilling are always present in communication, I accentuate this property intentionally because I want the reader to think and evaluate meaning for themselves.

When one acts in disunity with what they "know" something else is in control. That something else means somewhere there is a shackle on their being. Is it a coincidence that shackle rhymes with shekel? I think not.

Are you certain? Regarding the addict, the action is deemed good by the actor at that point in time. The observer says it is not good because if the observer where present they would act to stop the addict (be it someone else or their future or past self). The addict has been malformed to act in discord with their own well being by habit, perception, environment, beleifs, etc., but the action certainly occured because that which was in control deemed it good.

Interpretation and infilling are always present in communication, I accentuate this property intentionally because I want the reader to think and evaluate meaning for themselves.

When one acts in disunity with what they "know" something else is in control. That something else means somewhere there is a shackle on their being. Is it a coincidence that shackle rhymes with shekel? I think not.