This direction is a very common occurrence with spiritual oriented stuff that I encounter.
Consider to use the phrasings of “What shall I do?”(but not in the what I would like to do sense) and “What will I do?” (but not in the prediction sense). It seemed plausible to me that the deliverable is volition.
I will try to recreate some phrasing that I feel tried to reach at this same thing in the hopes the different angle helps.
Division leads to fragmentary action which will inevitably produce conflict. So as long there is the self and environment total action is impossible. (combined with shard theory, consider what happens if there are no net winner or losers within the shards or if the attribution system flags all the shards or if all shards bid in the same direction)
Think about being a whale saving campaign runner in your free time and being a whale hunter as your job.
Also a sketch about taking peace seriously which highlights some failure modes rather nicely.
-What papers have you got there?
-You see I am extremely concerned about the state of world peac. Now I have established a peace association named Peace Securers.
-Do you have to establish a new association? Aren’t there lots of existing ones to join?
-But I don’t accept their peace, I have to have my own. You see, the others are wishy-washy paraders walking with banners and singing protest songs. But my Peace Securers will establish peace to the world quickly and conclusively. If nothing else, with fist and dynamite, you get me?
-No
-Well sign up this joining form and you will soon understand
-No, I am not going to join any associations
[threatening collar-grip ensues]
-Don’t you see, you don’t play around with my Peace Securers. Name to the paper or you are going to be the first victim of the new world peace.
Making an identity means that you will be some specific sort of way. Which means some mode of action or being is now forbidden to you. If the situation calls to do that forbidden thing, you must choose between (that version of you dying + winning) and (surviving+messing the situation up). In order to not have such blockages you need to be nothing in particular.
Doing things myopically leads to doing two things that are contradictory. This is just a wastage of energy. “Weakness of will” scenarios involve you defeating yourself. The aggressor is the aggressed (aspects of it feels like “general society” but it can only infact be you who is doing the thing). If you do a choice reluctantly this will diminish or bother some part of you. Delving in enough depth to a question means not having such shadows-of-doubt. Digging to the truth-or-falsity of an insult will totally destroy its damagingness.
A conversational pattern with a question and guidance “do not take this as a simple claim that you either affirm or deny and then move on. Understand the question and think about it”. The trick has a success branch where no answer to the question is produced (ie thinking about it, “getting serious about it” is success enough. Giving a cached answer is a failure. (note that with important enough questions people will avoid answering “I do not know”)
A technique to get to know something. Explore the significance that you do not know that thing. The more serious the question gets, you start to apply a wider range of tools and keep at the search for longer.
You can not escape your conditioning. You can’t magically choose to be perfectly rational or enlightened. You must find a step that you can actually, in your limitation, take (noble regret). Your conditioning has entered from the environment and has in large part has already got honed before you were around.
Instead of analysis, the very seeing of the way to act is the doing. The proof is a recipe in the same go. Realization has the “manifestation” side as well as the “understanding” side.
This direction is a very common occurrence with spiritual oriented stuff that I encounter.
Consider to use the phrasings of “What shall I do?”(but not in the what I would like to do sense) and “What will I do?” (but not in the prediction sense). It seemed plausible to me that the deliverable is volition.
I will try to recreate some phrasing that I feel tried to reach at this same thing in the hopes the different angle helps.
Division leads to fragmentary action which will inevitably produce conflict. So as long there is the self and environment total action is impossible. (combined with shard theory, consider what happens if there are no net winner or losers within the shards or if the attribution system flags all the shards or if all shards bid in the same direction)
Think about being a whale saving campaign runner in your free time and being a whale hunter as your job.
Also a sketch about taking peace seriously which highlights some failure modes rather nicely.
Making an identity means that you will be some specific sort of way. Which means some mode of action or being is now forbidden to you. If the situation calls to do that forbidden thing, you must choose between (that version of you dying + winning) and (surviving+messing the situation up). In order to not have such blockages you need to be nothing in particular.
Doing things myopically leads to doing two things that are contradictory. This is just a wastage of energy. “Weakness of will” scenarios involve you defeating yourself. The aggressor is the aggressed (aspects of it feels like “general society” but it can only infact be you who is doing the thing). If you do a choice reluctantly this will diminish or bother some part of you. Delving in enough depth to a question means not having such shadows-of-doubt. Digging to the truth-or-falsity of an insult will totally destroy its damagingness.
A conversational pattern with a question and guidance “do not take this as a simple claim that you either affirm or deny and then move on. Understand the question and think about it”. The trick has a success branch where no answer to the question is produced (ie thinking about it, “getting serious about it” is success enough. Giving a cached answer is a failure. (note that with important enough questions people will avoid answering “I do not know”)
A technique to get to know something. Explore the significance that you do not know that thing. The more serious the question gets, you start to apply a wider range of tools and keep at the search for longer.
You can not escape your conditioning. You can’t magically choose to be perfectly rational or enlightened. You must find a step that you can actually, in your limitation, take (noble regret). Your conditioning has entered from the environment and has in large part has already got honed before you were around.
Instead of analysis, the very seeing of the way to act is the doing. The proof is a recipe in the same go. Realization has the “manifestation” side as well as the “understanding” side.