Complacency/distortion

To be blind is to be; any form of consciousness implies a self-distortion to reconcile the separation of the subject and the object. Language, symbol, as the veils of greatest importance, those with the heaviest potential of creation. Within language there is freedom, but freedom FROM, not freedom in and of itself. You are free from language in the abstract, but you are not free; if it must be witnessed, it must be defined, and it will conform to language, rather than push language beyond its limits. If I say to you, "The wild garden behind the house contained a central apple-tree and a few straggling bushes", I am speaking of God, of ignorance, of omnipresence. Refined as it is, the act of speaking of symbols is in itself a demonstration of the lengths we must go to in order to shove intricate and fluid ideas into a closed container, modifiable as it is. I am not free to show you God within an apple tree, I can only imply its presence through cultural associations. This isn't to reject reason, of course, as the mind is the body (not of the body), but only to point at the fallacy created in a reliance of one and rejection of the other.

Denial of nature/the visceral creates a dichotomy wherein reason and the ideal is worshipped and raw, unrefined material is rejected, but is opposition necessarily equivalent to separation? Opposition within a singular substance will always be engulfed by the overarching "natural trend" (notably why reforms don't work, or why a foetus causing a hemorrhage isn't considered assault). "Complete rejection is impossible" were my exact words. All is One; it can be fluid in shape, translucid, varying in nature, and mutilable, but it is one substance.

Complacency takes root in a lack of internal drive, either in complete absence of action or in an excessive reliance on external factors (there is a phenomenon where a nation will unite under the threat of a common enemy, as it creates an attainable goal to achieve)