Your allegories are well-crafted and I do respect that talent, they give me ideas to improve my own style. But substance-wise it's so difficult to discuss the most nuanced things with the most bulky illustrations.
I do not cling to any notion of 'control', nor do I fear any notion of 'lack of control'. As you so rightly put it, these are merely concepts, separate from and obstructing towards the living of reality. One is never without desire, but one does not always need to fight against existential gridlock and try to manifest their will in sovereign opposition to their very own self in attempt to think outside of an illusionary box. Enlightened, there is no longer any disconnect or delay between desire and action. Desire merely follows intention, however, and intention this minute cannot possibly be separate from your intention the next minute, hour or day, it cannot possibly be separate from your overall paradigm, your overall framework of priorities. When you're enlightened there is no "will" because you simply do as you do, your intention flows naturally into action, but before enlightenment your intention is tangled in self-contradictory knots and you are forced to take stands for and against yourself. Personal gain cannot confuse a person, only misunderstanding personal gain and obsessing over it can. And who is to "blame" for such confusion? Who is to "blame" when a stone becomes lodged in a machine's gears, messing up the works? Things happen, and one's inner mechanic must be most dynamic indeed. We don't choose how and when we make mistakes, but we do respond to them.
And yes, before you say it, one is not to always judge what is and isn't a mistake, everything is and isn't a mistake; the point is that there is an actual process underlying it all, a seamless, incremental, organic, living process, not some perennial blank slate that assumes to be simultaneously everything and nothing in utter emo-esque defiance of both the canvas and the painter that would nullify its own absence of substance.