To me it would be a term of affection involving upping a sentiment one step further, though both conveying equal affection. Like one person saying "I have zillion Dollars" and another replying "I have two" - zillion involves infinity, there is no such thing as an infinity that is twice as big, for that matter, money supply is quite finite, both statements are simply hyperbole, both implying considerable amount, both potentially being the same amount.

And no, I do not use such affectionate terms of endearment routinely, and given my solitary path in life, additionally lack the opportunity to do so. And the one opportunity I have, I feel bit burned out or distracted at the moment to really experience that level of "love" - still, hopefully, the amount I'm capable of at the moment is taken in its context of where I'm at in life... but I digress.

Childhood into early young adulthood, would have been a relative "good time" overall, the "good time" which preceded a nightmare lasting equally as long. I don't think I got through it on my own, a greater force than me sustained me when I was in self-sabotaging mode for the most part. In retrospect, I know I had little to nothing to do with it, but, also in hindsight, I abandoned my God yet He did not abandon me. To Him I must give credit, albeit at the time my abandonment was not an attempt to arm-twist Him into doing my bidding, rather a genuine departure, like in the story of the Prodigal Son.

"After the hard time" - it's kind of strange to be aware the world's turmoils can erupt into wars and economic disasters that would have significant detrimental effects upon my life, yet at the same time be somehow at peace with this prospect. It's like, albeit I "need things" to live, life is no longer about "such and other things". I may even come down with a terminal cancer tomorrow, pass on long before WWIII may erupt "next year", and again, that sense of inner peace. My point being, in response to Q#2 - I no longer perceive life as "good, bad, mix" when it pertains to externals such as wealth, poverty, peace, war, etc... for all these externals can vanish per various circumstances such as wars and economic upheavals, and if they do, per His grace, the "inner abundance" shall remain.

An example of something good in my life now - leisurely strolls through tree-lined neighbourhood streets, reflecting and marveling over flowers growing to the more profound matters (an example I often use for illustrative purposes). An example of something "good" in my former life - hoarding, devouring, boasting... all of which I now regard as unpalatable, even quite disgusting. Which is to say, that aforementioned "good life" that preceded the "hard time", in retrospect wasn't all that good to begin with, it was poison that I'm grateful for having been almost completely flushed out of my system, though some toxins still linger perhaps.

We each get through hardship if we do as Churchill put it - "When walking through hell, keep on walking". Taking it one step at a time, one day at a time, and when need be even one minute at a time if sufficiently unbearable. It leads to endurance, and, a higher plateau in life, with a higher vantage point that makes all the formerly-desirable turmoil and ugliness bellow seem so disgusting as to no longer desire it.

You mean "evolve" into, say, featherless winged gryphons? :)

I take it you mean "maturity/intellectually-wise" or such. Life for the most part are train tracks, each individual is, mainly through conditioning, locked upon a particular path. Then come "switches", those opportunities when presented with a potentially-life improving situation, and the balance to choose which set of tracks to take - current, or the new. If current direction, then, more of the same ensues, perhaps with more educational experiences. Sometimes, people get so sick of their path, it dawns on them "this is not desirable", sick enough to switch to the other set of tracks when the next opportunity to do so presents itself. Analogies aside - some people "never evolve" per lack of opportunities, when those who know better keep their valuable lessons to themselves instead of illuminating dark lives of others... Change, even after "illumination" may not happen any time soon, may even take place in the final moments of the journey, but, change does come to such individuals.

Plainly stated - people change when they are ready to, per enough information and experience as it takes to be willing to "choose the other path with the next fork in life". As such, those who, as per your question, "don't change" - they are not ready, they may not know of better alternatives, they may even have become apathetic and no longer care.

In an ideal "commune" society, like some so-called "flower children" experimented with in the 1960's, everything is actually free, but, such economic arrangement involving sharing of all goods and services each individual contributes, comes with a particular lifestyle - living within one's own means, minimalism, not biting off more of the proverbial pie at the expense of others going somewhat hungry.

Any healthy society functions properly when there is balance - in western capitalist democracies, the functional arrangement involves fueling one's cravings for material consumption while also bridling individual's lusts for material goods via wage corresponding to the individual's "prudent effort, ingenuity, etc...". In aforementioned ideal (non-Marxist) "communism", the "bridling" is not tied to external restraints such as individual's remunerated productivity, rather, internal restraint of taking only what one needs regardless of how much the same individual contributes (which is to say - one individual may be a prolific contributor to the commune, while his less able neighbor not as much, yet both take from the collective's pooled offerings what they need, perhaps a reasonable bit extra when there is abundance but not in any obscene excess).

Your example of taking all the DVD's you want is a type of imbalance that would ruin an ideal commune-way of life due to your implied lack of internal philosophy-based restraint, hence, an external restraint is imposed via wage-limit which varies with your contributions - be your contributions prudent effort where workload is light and financial rewards high, or hard menial labour with much work and little compensation, they constitute "contributions".

What would the world be like per your headline question? An ideal commune. But, per your subsequent "DVD example", would turn into an unsustainable nightmare where people would bite off not only more than they can chew, but would even reach down their neighbour's throats into their stomach in order to pull out the share they bit off... (to use a mangled analogy). People have the society for which they are ready, our culture, and more to the point, the masses subscribing to such dysfunctional culture, makes it impossible for any other arrangement than what we have, for now anyway. On the bright side, we try to improve, takes centuries, but, we're inching towards better future, just, it is too far off at this current social snail's pace.

The statement is bit unclear. Reworded example - "the only thing interfering with, say my goals or aims, is myself" - is not a paradox when the meaning is properly explained, and proves to be consistent. Case in point - the only thing interfering with my goals, is my immaturity, my naivete, my incompetence, ans similar "my this and that" elements of my views, philosophy, nature.

Instead of a paradox, I would classify it as a play on words. Often we come up with cute sayings which seem contradictory on the surface, but when their meaning is explained, the context becomes clear, becoming a cute cliche over time, yet, when its meaning is preserved in the vernacular it passes into, it nevertheless conveys an actual consistent point transcending the "cute play on words".

re: poll - yes. explanation - you did not ask for one hence won't ramble on about it, albeit there is an explanation involving exhaustion of particular centers of the mind which need rejuvenation via focusing upon irrelevant pursuits... still, you didn't ask, so i didn't clarify :)