controversial nature of a decathlete

 February 4th 2010

Whenever self-control becomes an issue, I find it of primary importance. The question quickly asserts itself, under any given circumstance, of a superior social skill set. Further to this discussion, in virtue of it, there is a need to elicit, what are the non-specific causes not associated with self-control to properly define it. There is no action, or no such a thing as action. There is no instinct, or no such a thing is present. The question then becomes how does one empower themselves of self-controlling measure, if so, what method which is lost can attribute into such natural causes.

So self-control, is a kind of all too ill-advised a source.

Does self-control elicit it's whereabout's, in a timely order, so that your acting in synchronicity of a universal proportion - or proportion to it. I find this a very fascinating investigation of individual-ity. Only because, in every way shape or form, the self-control that you exhibit will in fact - ultimately - prove it's outcome.

Can there be a link or divide of such a loosely defined term, such as self-control, which this may adopt some case toward an origin. An origin, that is possible.

My idea in favoring self-control, certainly, make's my case which involve's over-reaction to phenomena, as if, almost at will. So, my question is interfaced, without I cannot examine any known natural cause, whether self-control in someway's inertia playing in large part to observance, whether or not self-control is in it's own efficacy a natural cause itself. A purpose nonetheless rewarding. Which then ask's, how do us, in natural effect's somewhat, somehow, somewhere, exhibit this very natural archetype. Self-control is merely an awareness, which come's and it goes as please's.

Therefore, I am in constant communication with my own sense of perception, whether I am provoked in someway evoke's emotion, or does self-control if in fact it does exist, lose itself. (It must be allowed to.)

So, I came to the conclusion, that if self-control is always imminent, never to far beyond our scope of necessary reason, albeit necessary which self-control exhibits functioning. It does not however, inform nor guide anything other than myself, in what may in factuality i.e. real time it is taking place. Where everything, everyone submits is a known entity only determined by self-control as a means. In fact it is of an utmost important thing - us believe - not worth about questioning. Self-control simply is. It is - perfect. It manages itself without worry of natural causes related from it.

The same truth may apply to the surface, of unrelated causes, such as in pleasure in appetite, though we would not exhibit dieting as a form of pleasure, but one of punitive means. To lose weight is a superficial form of self-control, yet to gain weight is not seen in term's of self-control, what self-control does not do is gain weight which deviates from the dieting model. In retribution, self-control is the exact opposite of dieting as weight gain as it would be permissible. So, your choice in eating less, may offset the guilt in various stages of dieting, which is not the same as weight gain. As complex a system self-control is, undeniably it play's a major unconscious role in the way we factor.

It's as if we're compromising, negotiating our way into a kind of transparent state of mind, where we control nothing, but our self-control. Yet, it is a vaguely unfamiliar way to denounce such a thing into yourself. I find everything I've ever done based on this version of thoughts.