It is perhaps a corollary of the Type A personality that he or she is never fully satisfied with what is.

The Type A and Type B personality concept describes two contrasting personality types. In this hypothesis, personalities that are more competitive, highly organized, ambitious, impatient, highly aware of time management, or aggressive are labeled Type A, while more relaxed, “receptive”, less “neurotic” and “frantic” personalities are labeled Type B.

Whether this multifactorial association is proof of anything, either success, coronary heart disease or tobacco cancer (each of which by the way has been alleged) is questionable. The verdict is as yet outstanding. What however speaks to me with undeniable probity upon any assessment of personality is what I consider to be an axiomatic truth; namely, acceding to one’s limits. Limitation is naturally nothing new in society. Nor in my opinion is deference thereto.

“Let the sailor content himself with talking of the winds; the cowherd of his oxen; the soldier of his wounds; the shepherd of his flocks.” — An Italian translation of Propertius (c.50–c.16 BC), Roman poet

Excerpt From Michel de Montaigne
“The Essays of Montaigne — Complete.”

The distortion of this natural mandate is assured to cause trouble. It bespeaks a deception to do so. I have for example known one in the legal profession who at best might have been denoted “practicing law with the contempt it deserves”; privately, he was consumed by regret and misadventure. It was not that he hadn’t the ability to perform as a barrister and solicitor.  It was his unrestrained reluctance to do so notwithstanding having been fully educated and called the bar. After suffering unimaginable personal and associated familial decline, he acceded to his limits and opted instead for his heart’s calling, theatrics (albeit amateur), at which he was very good, but it was too late. Recovering his buoyancy after a lifetime of injury to his limits barely altered the submersion. The influence of his father to study and practice law had not been at all providential.

By comparison, when I graduated from prep school and entered undergraduate university, I telephoned my father to advise him that I had decided to study philosophy (instead of economics as he had proposed). There was a lull on the telephone line, then he said, “Well, it’s your bed. You make it. You sleep in it.” I must first add that at boarding school from the age of 14 years I studied Latin for four years. I also participated in debating societies both then and subsequently (including having started a debating society at Devonshire House where I was a Don while attending Osgoode Hall). Furthermore when I arrived at law school (a decision I made because I felt I needed a trade), I quickly learned that philosophy (with its rules of syllogistic reasoning) was aptly suited to the study of law and logic. My father’s original estimate though well intentioned was mistaken.

There are naturally arguments one way or another about going with the flow of the river or otherwise; but on balance, given an honest and careful analysis of the projects at hand, it is difficult to escape the related adage that, “If you do what you like, you’ll like what you do.”

The dynamics of acceding to one’s limits can encompass the ofttimes more treacherous territory of one’s domestic life as well. While attending law school I became engaged to be married.  Fortunately for my affianced (and me too) I awoke to the violability of doing so. My mother didn’t speak to me for months afterwards. I am quite certain I lost certain alliances from school as well. My lady friend had studied law.  Her father was a judge. Her grandfather was a lawyer. They were all descendants of an esteemed local family.  Curiously, year’s afterwards, my partner and I met with my lady friend.  She, apart from having married the man who loved her unquestionably and having raised children, had serendipitously also removed herself from her father’s influence and the practice of law.  Instead she opted for the retail business of ladies wear for which at law school she had been conspicuous.

One final observation: acceding to one’s limits does not always involve one’s career or other formal contractual relationships.  It also applies to everyday affairs and friendships.  Recognizing the limits of those native and sometimes whimsical alliances is equally important.  There are many barques upon the ocean’s waters. Accepting when to step onboard or ashore is just as material. A sinking ship has few survivors; and, it can be a long swim back to land.