This is water.

It's true what he says. I am always a little afraid of people so in life when he describes the first part, which must be terrible, it makes a depression almost understandable, but I actually think this setting is incomprehensible ... There are so many people who see everything as fact and it is very sad and sad, but where is the solution? How are people aware of how they shape the world?

Yes, the setting of the constant (usually negative) review of everything you encounter in a sort of irritation about the existence (it seems). I do not understand, that you let happen when you realize that you yourself are the cause of.
Of the body or the people with that institution I got a little scared, yeah ... If someone whining over how bad the summer is not that it was now so cold and raining piss piss piss piss, and then I feel a certain sense be limited, intimidated, what I should say? Yes, completely, because (...)? Or arguing, but I do not want that? So I usually only half-hearted nod affirmatively and then it will be.
I can not understand why people are so incredibly excited about all the little things of life, enjoy and keep your whining.

I will also not deny that I am selfish and self centered / can be, but I try wherever possible to avoid. The "danger" here is, I think you tend to get to the selfish annoyances to oppress or to patch up with excuses, such as Wallace does. I think you lying to yourself but what if you think 'it' than to have reached. These annoyances should not even be created. You need to think well aware of the annoyances and think about how stupid they are, but you're not there yet. Only when you can just live without spontaneous irritations whatever you come up sometime.

I shall therefore say that "everything in perspective" is not where you should be looking. That's actually a third way, which I absolutely do not want to hit. This may be wegrelativeren maybe a way to "zen-like fool' are accessed.
It is, as Amy said, whether it is possible to "Senne zwevert-like" to be. She thinks of himself not. I think so or at least to a considerable height.
This "zen like fool" You'd be called a wimp. But now we come back almost to the discussion we had in Baldwin (with Level I and one 'camp' and Hugo, Nathan and others in the other), or on a world of unity and different opinions / division is desirable. And that discussion is not yet an end, I think. I can vaguely remember that it ultimately came down to us (or at least me) a very different view of 'how life should be' have ("meaning of life 'blalba) than you. Maybe that this is all under that I easy, simple, pure life, and do the best you / your ... something else, at least where it is possible to discuss and which (to some extent) conflict. Which of those two it is "better" and why ... That is another story in itself. But I digress again:)