Don't you have the compulsion to confirm each and every of your experiences with your narration? To validate, ratify, confirm, and abdicate what you experience?
And if you can’t confirm it with your conceptual repertoire, deny its existence? To eventually fall into the glitch where you limit what you experience with the primitive semantics of your vocabulary?
This is not only because you don’t trust your senses independently from the social narrative, but because deep down you are doubting your existence. Not totally, of course, at least not all the time, but halfway there is not there either.
Your quality of existence is made dependent on the conditions of the states you seek. Be it happiness, euphoria, or satisfaction, in order for you to experience what these constructs mean, your experience must conform with their conditions.
Rather than to experience all that is and can be at your disposal with naive creativity, you are looking for matches. And when we look for matches we either find what we are looking for or miss what we expected. In both cases, all else is ruled out.
So the rules for happiness preclude you from experiencing any other happiness than the one socially and digitally described. The tick boxes you’d have hoped to make it easier for you to notice when you are feeling happy, and ostensibly help you to generate more of it, end up being the very obstacle in the way of experiencing it.
Yes, the vessel has become the obstacle. And you have now fooled yourself, for the eternity of your life, that you must be happy to be happy, confident to be confident, satisfied to be satisfied, and whole to be whole. But as this clearly shows, you need not even exist to exist.
Existence is self-evident. With that out of the way, what stops you from being the radical presence of action?