Thinking, unfortunately, is a digital system

Point 1. I have located the seat of human problems. It lies in the human brain. We can think and reason, and that is hugely unfortunate.
Human brain can differentiate between what is and what can be - or even, what should be. That makes a highly fertile background for dissatisfaction. The dog, I suspect, does not compare the state of 'what is' to anything else. He lives happily in 'what is' and dies when the time comes. Mind you, I will also die when the time comes - but not before spending a lifetime worrying about it.

Somewhere, I read the following lines ( exact words, or author, not recalled now ) -
Heaven from all creatures hide the book of fate
All but the page prescribed, their present state
From brutes what men, from men what spirits know
Or who would suffer being here below
The lamb, thy is doomed to bleed today
Had he thy reason, would he skip and play?
Pleas'd to the last, he crops the flowing food
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood
Oh blindness to the future! kindly given
that each may fill the circle, marked by heaven
Who sees with equal eyes, God of all
a hero perish, or a sparrow fall

But man is not content with the hidden tomorrow. He looks into palms, stars, faces, crystal balls and even tea leaves to decipher tomorrow. Gosh!
Do you know why ' Zebras do not get ulcers'? By now, I suspect you would have guessed.

Point 2. Within the boundaries of thinking, the most serious lacuna lies in the fact that thinking is digital, while happenings are analog.
Whenever something happens, say some feelings emerging within me, it happens ' in itself', and not with reference to some other universal pole. However, whenever I wish to express or even acknowledge it to myself, I need a word/scale for same. Should I be labeling the feeling as ' being angry' or 'being aghast' or ' being distraught'? Though I have the liberty to choose the magnitude - somewhat angry, more angry than ---. very angry, very very angry, I still must choose one of the existing scales - and that is what makes it digital. In forcing an analogous value into a digital system, the base gets corrupted. In most cases, the corruption might be minimal. but a lifetime of ' minimal corruptions' gets quite heavy as age progresses.
How I wish I could think in an analog manner - just the way it is - without needing to force fit it into the digital system of the existing available sets.

Is there some connection between Point 1 and Point 2 above. You bet there is. A dog's life is pure and for its own sake. In Hindi language ( Sanskrit, actually ), I would put it as - swantah sukhayah ( for the sake of one's own happiness ). A human's life is always one of conformity - even if it is to conform to the rigidities of a digital thinking system. Analog is pure, ' whatever it is'; Digital is force-fitted into a system of artificial boundaries - something with reference to others.
In the previous paragraph, I fell into my own trap and now I am editing this post to include this observation. When I was writing about the dog's life, I did not quite mean to express what is normally understood by 'for the sake of one's own happiness'. But that phrase is a well accepted one - a digital finite one. I plumped for it, corrupting my actual analog meaning.

How I wish I were a dog! Hopefully in the next life -but only if I please God in this one.