When we talk about fulfilment; we talk about many descriptors — zoomed out. InIn the parlance of design they are termed as the typology. As we detail and explicate we realise that these descriptors are the very core of the form that fulfilment takes. This form is what we study here. We study the form so that we achieve fulfilment in a form that is lasting. In the first batch we study the descriptors that detail for us the characteristics which are necessary to know in order to formulate any blue-print of the phenomenon of fulfilment. Characteristics like ‘when’ and ‘how’. Now we have understood fulfilment to be having two states. A pleasant state and also an unpleasant state.
Because when a person believes they are fulfilled — they also become opposed to the idea of life that takes form serendipitously. Anything can happen so neither does it make sense to be in a pleasant mood neither does it make sense to be in an unpleasant mood. One will surely turn into the other with time spent.
Pleasant as in a fulsome state of being. Unpleasant as in as something that begets nostalgia or an imbalanced state of being — but one that is resolvable. Pleasant is not pleasant forever and unpleasant is also on the path of pleasure. Nothing is a fixed state which can be decided as a state which is for keeps. These are states in transition. Pleasant/unpleasant are situations which have qualities attached to them. Such qualities fade over time and become the other — pleasant becomes the unpleasant and also the other way round.
So the typology of fulfilment is not just full of the parameters of the ‘how’ and ‘when’, but also the details of who with and under the tutelage of whom. When events happen, they cannot be denied, they have to take their course. Whether they take us towards a pleasant or an unpleasant end depends on numerous factors. How — what settings does an event happen under? What is the context and what is the platform? When — what time and progression leads to a particular event? The progression of the event will also lead to something called the ‘temporal context’. What happened before and what happened next bears a lot of significance to the fact of the happening.
Who are the instigators? Who has been the inspiration or the supporters of the event taking shape? These two questions bear a lot of weight in deciding the pleasant/unpleasant nature of the fulfilment and the framing of the event.
Is it a recurring event (with a certain interval) or a one time event. Does the event happen as it is or in a certain guise? Adopting any guise will only ease the happening and response of an event. The question of ‘why’ or ‘why not’ will place any event in a background context which frames the event with the causative factors clearly and sharply.