No rest for the wicked

I never truly thought that I was wicked, but it turns out that I most likely am. I come to this conclusion due to my inherent lack of rest. Since, "There is no rest for the wicked" and since I do not feel rested, by the transitive property, am I therefore wicked.

Clearly this is a logical leap, since, most assuredly, the populations of un-rested and wicked are not mutually exclusive. There are people out there who have not rested for a long long time and are not considered to be wicked, but by the definition stated above, if I am indeed wicked, I am un-rested. So, I am just playing the odds.

Since I unabashedly choose funny over nice, I do not think that I can say that I am truly a nice person. I can live with that. Years of therapy have allowed me to accept the fact that I will choose funny over nice, and years of choosing funny over nice has effectively surrounded me with people who in some way, shape, or form support that trend in my personality. So, if in fact I am not nice, I could be wicked.

But to call myself truly wicked would be a bit off the mark as well. I have never kicked a kitten in the rain, and there have been opportunities to do so (It would not have been that funny). A truly wicked person would have booted kitty into a puddle in the middle of a thunderstorm. I guess this gets down to the idea of people either being wicked or not being wicked. It is a bivariate argument, and I am tacitly against bivariate logic.

So the more I explore this idea of wicked = un-rested, the more I realize that this saying is a bivariate statement. If one is rested, one cannot be wicked, because all wicked have no rest. Bivariate sucks. It is a purely western philosophy issue. Bivariateness stems directly from Greek and Roman systems of thinking. Yes or No, Black or White, This or That. Why can't I be somewhat wicked and therefore somewhat un-rested? Put that in your thinking pipe and smoke it, Procrates.

So, what I am getting at is that multivariate systems of logic are much more true to life than bivariate systems of logic and choice. The more choices one has, the closer the approximation to reality, the more refined the system. Lets say that my choices are now wicked, somewhat wicked, and not wicked. Being somewhat wicked gives me the distinct possibility of actually having achieved some rest, whereas being wicked does not afford me that luxury. I can live with that. Simply adding a third choice has made this system of choice a better system.

So, in conclusion, the 2 party electoral system sucks, we need more candidates to vote for so we are not just voting for a team name, but for the ideology behind the candidate.