Oh no, no disorder - just life. There is no external meaning, so whatever you decide is it. If you don't decide on anything it's not a disorder: Maybe there just is no good reason to decide on something. In novels like LOTR or war movies life is made meaningful by letting the environment dictate your choice, i.e. limiting your options severely. The paradox of choice shows itself on more than making it tougher to select the right brand of strawberry jam out of 20... :)

I have chosen to use a little bit of chemistry to view life. You don't have chemical reactions where every single molecule reacts. It's a probabilistic model: You throw them all into the pot, and then chance dictates that the right molecules actually meet, which is a function of how quickly they move around (increases chances of meeting your destiny to combine with others into the product), how many there are, etc.

To nature, we are just like those molecules. Whether we meet conditions where we can combine fruitfully depends - and on A LOT more variables than in a simple chemical reaction. And it gets worse! Because the complexity of our solutions keeps increasing! Which means it gets harder and harder to find the right conditions (which includes the right people) for all to combine. Take Einstein and Newton for example. What is overlooked that without their environment, which includes society and hundreds of people they were in contact with, tens of thousands when also counting indirect connections, was essential. You can throw a protein into a soup and nothing happens, only when the exactly right conditions and exactly the appropriate other molecules are present will something happen.

So I don't worry about it too much. I see myself as part of a big probabilistic thing. I am ready and somewhat searching for "my" right conditions, but that is all I'm actually supposed to do by nature. So if I don't find them I just have a good time before it all ends (in my case that does not mean partying).

Somewhat related, from a cartoonist:

- http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102965026826/goals-are-for-lose...

- http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102964992706/goals-vs-systems

I added the links for the parts about "system vs. goal - why goals are bad" (I don't want to touch that "you have limited willpower" thing with a ten foot pole, or the simplistic nutrition advice that is only an aside anyway). This goes along nicely with what I mean, if you can see it.

    > Goals work great for simple situations. But the world is rarely simple these days.
    > You don’t know what your career will look like in a year. You don’t know what the
    > economy will be doing, or which new technologies will hit the scene. Your personal
    > life is just as unpredictable. The future is a big ball of complexity if you look
    > out far enough. And that means your odds of picking the one best goal for you are
    > slim, and the odds of achieving it are even slimmer, because everything is a moving
    > target.
    > ...

(Read the 1st link, that's just the introduction.)

    > And while you’re at it, stop worrying about whether you have enough passion for
    > success. Passion comes from success; success doesn’t come from passion.

EDIT: I found that Scott Adams has been linked to by others too, this exact same thing, "systems vs. goals".