Driven or interested?

In this article: Are there important challenges in the world needing our attention and into which we feel compelled to lean? Or, is the feeling that there is something [dreadfully] wrong with the world, driving our need to participate and make a difference? It's a subtle distinction with profound consequences.

The first asks a question, the seconds assumes a reality.

But first we must create an important philosophical distinction. Is what is happening the most intelligent and compassionate expression possible, given the circumstances? Or is it somehow, for whatever reason, wrong, limited or flawed?

If my wife behaves in a clearly irrational way -- would I experience this as her most intelligent and compassionate behaviour, given her psychological conditioning and current circumstances, or as somehow flawed and wrong?

Which position best empowers me to engage wholeheartedly, intelligently and compassionately? If a deliberate choice is not made, the default choice will almost certainly be, to experience it as somehow flawed and wrong.

And no matter how powerful, rich or famous I may be the second option reduces me to the status of a victim. And a victim always responds reluctantly, finds fault, suffers, feels entitled to unearned benefits and to lash-out [punish]. More importantly the victim is incapable of taking response-ability, even for his own actions.

Thereafter every strategy and tactic is sub-consciously designed to maintain the status quo.

And the psychological posture of the victim and that of being open and deeply interested in understanding, upon which relevance is dependent, are mutually exclusive.

That the world is perfect is not a New Age occult confusion, but rather a rational and experiential necessity. That this perfect world has both perfect and possibly life threatening challenges, in which I feel competent, compelled and interested to engage... a more useful and empowering mindset.