A need for redefinition is on the horizon, or rather very urgent, not only because a chapter in life is going to be officially closed(isA), but because an earlier definition failed and broke into pieces and all that's left is shattered residue of a life, a person and a destiny.
Even though believing in "meant to be" is out of the question, believing in making your own destiny is very viable.
An entity needs to be defined on its own, not just in a certain environment; because some times an entity might get displaced or relocated into a different environment, and if the entity is incapable of defining its own existence, it will just morph into a shell or a mirror of its surroundings and all its credibility will be lost, and in some cases it might be impossible to even return to a previous state.
Yet , how do we define an entity; meaning if we view an entity in a certain habitat, record its behavior and reactions, would that be a correct way to define it?
Who says that this entity isn't just behaving a certain way in this case and that it's not its true behavior, its true reactions and true voice?
The entity might only be true to itself, behaving in a natural way on its own, but that means an onlooker will never be able to comprehend an absolute entity, untarnished, uncensored , simply an entity, devoid of any pollutants.