I loved M. Simon's quotation from Emerson. So much so that despite Emerson's warning against quotes -- a quote infamously violated by William Safire -- I wanted to quote the rest of the paragraph .

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. -- 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' -- Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

I suppose no man can violate his nature.....

I'd hate to get into a losing war over whether I can violate my nature lest I start wondering whether my nature is natural, only to be swept away into a meaningless logical spiral of what is "mine" and what is "natural."

But if I can't violate my nature, can't I at least violate other people's natures?

I mean, whose nature is this anyway?

If I violate other people's views of what my nature should be, can't I just say I was violating my nature and cite them as authorities? I don't like the idea of living with a nature that I can't violate, so those who know my nature better tell me what to do. Frankly, I'm jealous of those who know, but because I hate my foolish inconsistencies, I'll never admit it.

Perhaps I should learn to be more tolerant, and let them violate my nature!