(which path would you take?)Not to decide is to decide.
~ Harvey Cox ~
I have a decision to make. A very expensive decision. You see, it is not just that I have to decide whether or not to spend a lot of money. That's only one angle on the issue.
The issue is this: No matter what I do, it is going to be expensive.
Does that change your perspective at all?
Here are the options so far in order of least to greatest monetary cost:
1) Do nothing. I realize that doesn't sound expensive. However, what it does is delay the inevitable. The probability that I will have to do something expensive eventually is very high. The probability that the problem will go away is...about as good as my chances of winning the lottery. Also, in the short term, there is the price to be paid in intangibles--not money.
2) Pay something now to get more information that may increase the odds of a making a better decision--or not. This doesn't solve the problem. Just informs the decision making process.
3) If I opt to do #2, then I might be able to decide at that time to take the next step. On one hand that sounds wise--like a "no duh" kind of decision. However, even if I get the information that says the next step is feasible, there is a 50-50 chance that it will work and I might have to go for the most expensive anyway. However, "the next step" could buy me some time before making that decision. It could work.
4) Or I can opt for the whole enchilada up front and save the expense of #2 and/or #3. This is a more drastic choice whose inevitability will occur eventually if I choose #1 and maybe if sooner if I choose #2 or maybe later if #3 is even an option.
You see...whatever I do is a gamble. I just don't know which is the greatest gamble or which is the most expensive when human and monetary costs are tallied up.
Sigh.
I know you don't know what I am talking about and you really can't even give me any advice. I accept that.
But tell me anyway...what would you do?
Posts
7 comments:
If money weren't in the equation, what would you do? That's what I would choose for you.
And I'd choose the path that wasn't paved, Robert Frost fan that I am.
I'd go for number 2, within reason. I like to get information but i try to keep in mind that i can get only get so much information. I think Deb's advice is good.
I agree with Deb and Susan: What would you do if money weren't an issue?
Re #2, at first glance, the better informed, the better the decision, right? Not knowing the dilemma, though, it's difficult to gauge how much that additional information can help. Could it change the ultimate outcome significantly? Enough to be worth the gamble all round? If money weren't an issue, how much would that information matter?
As for the path, since I'm still fairly surefooted, I'd take the unpaved. The feel of the earth directly under my feet--it's as if our molecules are exchanging atoms in a fabulous happy dance. I don't get that on pavement. Then there's the scent of the earth under foot, little bits of organic matter releasing their delicate aromas. That doesn't happen on pavement either.
Wow, Wanda! You have some good friends giving you some good advice. I DO know what your dilemma is and I can't advise you which way to go. Guess I would say to get enough information to know exactly what your options and chances are and try to make the best choice with the facts you are given. And as much as the money matters when the bills come in, we can't always let that be the deciding factor. My wish is that the choice you make is the one that is best for the whole of you. Having a healthy body is more important in the long run than a healthy bank account. Good luck. I love you.
And I would take the unpaved path. It looks like it goes downhill!
I'd sit quietly with Mary and let the answer come to me.
I would get still, and listen, and go with my gut. I'd make the decision, and then get behind it. Fully.
Post a Comment