The problem with being “good enough” is that we subject ourselves to climbing a mythologized and obfuscated peak that erupts into the stratosphere.
What’s more, since “enough” is a criteria created and evaluated only after the inciting incident is over, the rules of engagement will never be in our favor. If we attempt to be “enough” we subject ourselves to a standard informed by reflective hindsight, revisionist history, and limitless things we could have done differently. In essence, “enough” is a peak we’ll never reach because it’s designed to be indomitable.
But what the hell does “enough” even mean? And why do we all care about this impossible qualifier?
I think on one hand, being “enough” is a form of self initiated growth fueled by our desire to be the arbiters of our positive development. But on the other hand, “enough” is just some bullshit. It’s an impossible to attain criteria because it’s an impossible to define concept. It’s a leftover, pathologized, idea that is obviously damaging.
I think we’d all do ourselves a favor if we simply dropped the latter half of the phrase “good enough.” Which would shift our focus to simply being “good.” And in doing so would liberate our imaginations from wondering if we’ll ever have to climb that mythologized peak which stretches into the horizon and inevitably leads to our destruction.