I once had a teacher who was fond of using phrases like “If you can go one day without it, you can go two days without it. If you can go two days, you can go four.” and so on and with different periods, often extending the idea to the end of time. He would use these examples to prove both sides of arguments. For example, if I can go without chocolate for one week, surely I can go without it for two. And if I can go without chocolate for two weeks, surely I can go without it for a month. And if one month, why not two or twelve? And fine, Yes, I don’t NEED chocolate.
But I can probably go one day without water. And I might be able to go two. But I don’t think I’d make it to four. And a week would probably kill me.
So which is this? Four weeks ago I lost something. The first week without it was so hard I almost tried to get it back, barely resisting. The second week was much harder. MUCH harder. And I did take action to try to understand my loss better, and I survived the second week. And if I can survive two weeks without, I can survive four, right? All I had to do was make it to this morning, and I’ve survived four weeks. So which is this? Is this like giving up food, where I can survive four weeks but not more than six? Or is this like giving up coffee, where I could theoretically go forever?
I didn’t know
That it could go this far
I don’t feel right
I’ve got a crack in my heart
I didn’t know
that it could go
this far
-Prick, No Fair Fights
