So, it occurs to me that expressable things may contain paradoxes, but what is an expressible thing? We use colliquialism in speech and phrase, and yet it is a kind of deception. Or even in total honesty, it could still be hypnotic. And finally, being not at all that, it lastly would create artificial desire. (The mentioning of things, essentially, and the expression of desire itself) These are things that would spread a sense of longing. Besides recognizing the depth of each other, it may be looked at as something rather undesirable, and like immaturity in the form of adult crying, or of simply bad writing. One must wonder that if something is written badly, but by someone with great reason to write well, that it is not indeed written by someone who suffers greatly.
Words therefore are an extension of our mouths, aren't they. Like long teeth, or a bowl-shaped tongue. Anti-climactic, which is not ~due~ to their origin, but instead due to their habitation. (The influence or interconnectedness of that complacency most always seen by eloquence; Or, the existence of luxury, which does not sit still. For surely, if fine words are only uttered by those who are lavished in luxury, then it would still be a point of little notice; indeed, people who do not have a desire or want could be considered to have, paradoxically, a lack of ability to express anything meaningful.
Contrast then is the missing element in idealism. Mistakenly, people say children idealize, but truly, this convention is unfortunate. It is adulthood and practice, the utter idolatry of a falseness that grows with time, such as in the story of Pinochio. So then the most ironic thing is that age and maturity create falsehoods. Children learn to lie, as the saying goes, by listening to adults, who seem somehow to encourage children to make poor decisions, who seem to be bad influences. In truth, however, I know absolutely nothing about a bad influence.
Such it is then that basically, indulgence is the happiness of the nieve. Indulgence which cannot be satisfied, which leads to profound unhappiness. Then this difficult trial, which may indeed feel like a tribulation, upon passing, bestows a person with some form of personal glory and personal jadedness. Therefore it seems that the only thing that can be said, besides that utter meaningless is also utterly eternal, (which is easy to say), is that the More things have a particular eccentricity, (speaking of life and living beings), the more they require more description than words can say.
Not actually that words cannot describe them, but instead that multiple words have to be used, and with multiple things being described, with the result being a portrait of things in relative position to one another. This ends up being a totally arbitrary talent, which could explain why geniuses have this reputation of becoming rather lunatic. Or, what Oscar Wilde meant when he said that most people suffer a life of quiet desparation. It's that there are fewer things to satisfy an appetite that is too big, and so that insatiable hunger presents emptiness, even and especially where there is in fact plenty. Thus the paradox is that in total poverty, people very well might have extreme wealth; but it is a wealth I would never have anything to do with. Just because it is glorious to have something does not mean that it is desirable. Such as, for example, an explanation as to why poverty is not really poverty, which I admit is utterly absurd. But then this is about paradox and the intangibility of such, which are sort of blasphemous of the way words are thought of typically, which is symbolic and directed, sacred and devoted, and so on (with the Bible being an icon of total importance, and Christianity being a movement that defies all rationale).