good is the worst enemy of better

i took a shower last night around 3am. i do a lot of thinking in the shower. my mind drifts, wanders, and generally meanders. eyes closed, with the hot water running down one's face, it feels almost meditative. i don't remember why, but some train of thought led me to thinking about better vs good, and at some point i realized i was just huddled up, sitting on the floor of the shower, with my knees curled up to my chest, and my heart beating rapidly.

amanda says that better is the worst enemy of good. it seems to me like those are the two, the only two, approaches one can take to life. i don't mean there are no other approaches, but whatever else you think, in this facet of the approach to life there are only these two choices. better / good. could be better / good enough. but it seems so odd, or wrong somehow, that these two approaches, while making so much sense, can also be portrayed to be just as nonsensical. if someone is always striving for an ideal, how can that be bad? and if someone is happy or content or fulfilled with his or her lot in life, how can that be bad? each is a perfect argument against the other. so what's the right way? we need someone, religion or science or medicine or therapy, to tell us at what point our search should end and we should settle. how in hell else are we supposed to know?

i am absolutely positively certain that people will never be happy in relationships until they learn to settle. you have to bat your league. but everyone wants that someone just a little bit above. i know i do. someone that's bright enough and funny enough, and unavoidable though superficial as it is, pretty enough, that i'd tell myself every day, man, i am lucky that she picked me when she could do better?

i think i could be happy as a high school teacher. teaching kids is fun. summer vacation is fun. but would i be happy enough?

i agree with amanda. but knowing me and my inertia and just the way i live, i also think that good is the worst enemy of better.