When I was younger, I was more impressed with the "second-rate" category. Then I switched to that "first-rate" ideal he describes. Now my understanding lies in

When I was younger, I was more impressed with the "second-rate" category. Then I switched to that "first-rate" ideal he describes. Now my understanding lies in the middle and I find both types to be awe-inducing as long as they testify to a lust for life or some degree of active curiosity. In fact, I came to reject the binary and hierarchical classification altogether. If you asked me to delineate precisely by what criteria I find someone impressive or not, I could not for the life of me give you a useful answer. Even if a person were to attain an understanding of life (which I agree is unattainable), they would still be faced with the impermanence of it and the fact that some actions are so intense and deeply felt as to need no further justification for their undertaking. Life still has to be lived after you come to conclusions about it. Or rather, the full expression of life as far as we can understand it isn't only to be found in contemplation but also in action, creation, and simple serendipity whether thoughtless or thoughtful. A bit like that joke where a person picks wisdom instead of a million dollars as a wish, then concludes that they should have picked the money. I mean this in a metaphorical sense, of course.