Archive for the ‘Inquiry’ Category

Some people like collecting bottlecaps, some people like rock climbing, others like pottery or oil painting. If we don’t make our living doing these things (which most bottle cap collectors do not), then we call these activities “hobbies.”

But what is the value of a hobby, and why does almost everyone seem to have a few? It seems like such a potentially rich part of the human experience, so we might as well understand it and aim to get the most out of our non-professional endeavors.

What a Hobby is About-

Before going any further, lets take a look at what a hobby is (thank you dictionary.com):

Hobby, n: An activity or interest pursued outside one’s regular occupation and engaged in primarily for pleasure.

By this definition (one that I think most people would agree with), hobbies are basically fun little things we do when we’re not working – mostly because we enjoy doing them.

This enjoyment probably comes from a million different sources for a million different people. Some people play golf because they enjoy the sense of calm that comes when they are out in nature. Some people climb rocks because they’ve always been fascinated with climbing and its something they get a certain rush from. Some people collect butterflies because they like to marvel at the beauty of such a unique and colorful creature.

These activities provide people with variety in their daily experience, sometimes with a creative outlet, sometimes with a physical challenge, etc…

We “get into” these fun little outlets and we make them a part of our lives.

I think its admirable to be engaged in our own lives and our own fun, but I would also still ask the question “what else could you be doing?” or “is this what is best for you now?” to many people involved in hobbies, myself included.

Do I consider hobbies to be evil? Do I want to tell people to stop any practice of hobbies and just work at their regular job all day long? No, not at all.

I just happen to think that often times, a person’s hobby might not be driving them in the directions that are most important in their lives.

Are Most Hobbies Just Wasting Time?-

Maybe this is a bit of a harsh way to put it. I’m not trying to stir anger and outrage in the internet community.

Lets make it clear that I don’t consider myself to be the exception to this tendency to not remain aligned with what is actually most important to us in our lives. Its just an idea to bounce out there, see if it resonates with you.

A point to consider is that our hobbies might not be bringing us towards the ideals of what we want to experience, what we want to accomplish, and who we want to become.

The obvious example might be the man struggling to support his family who has a golf hobby. He might want to reconsider spending that kind of cash on the green, and invest those hours in finding a higher paying job or picking up some side work. Assuming he values supporting his family over playing golf as a hobby (which isn’t necessarily the case, but in this example lets assume it is) – he’d better reconsider how he allocates his time, energy, and money.

I’m not only talking about cases where someone’s hobby is blatantly going against something more important to them, I’m talking about even the most subtle and seemingly innocent cases.

Lets take the example of a college student who happens to have a hobby of playing video games.

If you were to ask this college student what was most important to him in his life, “video games” would likely not make the list (it might, but in this example lets assume it does not). He might include things like: fun, meeting people, living a long and healthy life, contributing to his community, and revitalizing the environment.

While playing video games, one might ask him how playing video games is aiding him in developing those things which are most important to him in his life.

Or you could tell him to write 2 pages about his ideal future scenario of where he wants to be in 5 years. He might go into detail on the types of relationships he would have with people he cared about, he might go into the kind of house he would own and the exciting job he would be involved in.

While playing video games, one might ask him how playing video games is aiding him in creating that ideal future that he drew out so enthusiastically.

In either case he would probably tell you to lay off, stating that video games are just for fun, just to relax, and that everyone needs fun and relaxation in their lives.

Here’s where I think it gets good. Just me personally, but I like this part.

Aligning Ourselves with Purpose-

I think that most if not all people do need some form of relaxation and fun in our lives. I might ask, however, if there are other potential activities that could serve the same purpose of having a fun and relaxing effect on us, while at the same time orient us towards our highest goals.

The general principal might look like this:

For any activity that fulfills any need, determine if that need could be fulfilled by another activity which might further our highest objectives in life.

Boom. There it is. Lets look at how this idea might be applied:

___

Example 1: In the example with the college student looking for fun and relaxation, he might drop the video games and instead go play basketball with friends, or get involved in some environmental causes, or do some internet research on careers in his field, or go play pool in one of the dorms.

Any of those other activities listed could not only be fun and relaxing, but would also involve other things that student actually values in his life (IE: environmental causes, living healthy, meeting people, etc…). In this way, he is orienting himself towards that which he actually wants in his life, towards the future he desires.

Example 2: A man in his 50s is an avid chess player. He enjoys the fun and the challenge of chess, and he also likes being able to play with other people and meet friends. Let us assume that this man claims that his family is the highest priority in his life above all else, and that his other main objective in life is to innovate in his field of electrical engineering.

He might be able to switch his activities and find challenge in helping his children to better in school, or rekindling the fire of passion in his marriage. He might find fun in engaging his kids in new activities and encouraging their development. He might also find challenge and fun in new experiments and projects in his field of science.

The point is here, if chess doesn’t hold value by itself, and if family and engineering innovation are his highest objectives in life, then why doesn’t he allocate his energy and time towards enriching his family relationships and actually making progress on experiments in his field? If those are the things he actually does value most, then there seems to be not value not to.

___

Am I saying that chess is a bad thing, or that videos games are a bad thing? Of course not, but I am saying that nothing is exempt from potential scrutiny in terms of aligning our lives with what we actually want to do with them in the first place – to what is genuinely most important to us.

It might very well be that for the older man, chess holds a value and an importance that cannot be filled by other activities. It might be that for the young student, video games hold a unique kind of fun and relaxation effect that actually charges him up and makes him ideally effective in achieving what he most wants to achieve and becoming who he most wants to become.

If they were to make that distinction for themselves, I wouldn’t question their actions.

However, I would probably ask them to look inside themselves and determine if those activities at those times were genuinely what they deemed best for themselves.

This doesn’t just go for hobbies, though, this kind of introspection, self understanding and prioritizing can (and occasionally should?) be done with any action or decision.

This brings us to the last segment…

What it Breaks Down to:

Now we’ve gone beyond the isolated occurrences of “hobbies” and onto the bigger picture of living on our own best terms.

Participation in hobbies, like any other action or decision, can be referred to against the reality of what is actually most important to that individual at that time in that situation.

The breakdown looks like this:

Given what you value in your life, given what you want to accomplish, experience, and become, and given where you want to be in 1, 2, 5, 10, 80 years, is what you’re doing right now the ideal action?

Now, if the above question was posed to someone and they could honestly say “yes,” then they are either neglecting the complexity of the question and blatantly placating themselves, or they are genuinely living with a greater degree of conscious involvement and depth than 99% of the population on the planet.

For instance, the chess playing man might genuinely believe that helping his children study could make them reliant on his help, and that he can only focus on innovation in engineering for so long at a time, so there are times when chess as an activity is genuinely best for him given what he values and wants to achieve – then more power to him – he seems to be living life “on purpose” and is consciously following through on what actually matters to him.

Of course we can know very little about what is “objectively” the best decision for us given our values and goals, so we can never do more than make our best intelligent determination of what our best decision is – but it seems to make sense to have a criterion to reference in making such a distinction.

Lets not forget that we have a massive capacity to deceive ourselves, and we will tend to rationalize and avoid change. However, if we at least set our compass we won’t be able to help getting closer to alignment with our highest values day by day.

…

We’re alive for how long?

What are we doing with this time?

What matters to us?

Whelp, we better get to it.

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

Here’s a bunch of my personal notes from an inquiry on Integrity and Congruence. I argue that the

repercussions of living without this inner harmony has detrimental spill-over in many facets of

our lives:

Didn’t clean it us a tremendous amount to get “bloggy,” its just cold content, a mesh of a lot of schools of thought and insight.

Enjoy.

___

Congruence means ‘in agreement or harmony.’ When I talk about congruence in terms of self development, I’m referring to a general sense of integrity within ourselves and with our behavior.

This implies understanding what you want to achieve in your life and acting in accordance. This implies understanding who you want to be and what virtues you want to exemplify in your life and acting in accordance. This implies knowing what youwant to experience in your life and acting in accordance.

Having this degree of real self understanding is massively valuable in life. Again, so much of our stress and anxiety originates from not understanding what we want, and from not actually taking action on what we want. Settling most of this works wonders.

I’m going to drop a bunch of mindset ideas onto the board right now and let you all soak them in. Like I said before this is big picture stuff, this is how we tie these ideas together into a way of living on our own terms.

COMPLAINING

Have you ever known anyone who was doing something but complaining about it the entire time? Kids do this all the time with schoolwork or sports practice, or fixing their car, etcetera. Basically anything that isn’t immediately fun or entertaining is put in the “complain” category.

I’m going to pose something to you guys, I’m going to throw out a perspective and see if it resonates with you. I pose that when people complain about something while they’re doing it, the issue is not the activity itself, but the fact that the person doing it is not sure enough that this is his best action and is not confident enough to make a clear determination and stick with it. If your car tire runs flat and you have to pull over to put it up on the jack, do get pissed and kick your car door? Do you curse your car and your life?

We’ve all seen people freak out on their cars when something like this happens, and the reason its ridiculous is because its a completely useless expenditure of energy. Kicking the car doesn’t fix it, and it also doesn’t help you avoid the issue in the future, it just adds another car door ding to your list of expenses.

You could say the same about a big assignment like an essay. Sometimes you’ll see someone writing an essay and they’ll say “man this sucks, I wish I could be at the beach” or “I’d so much rather be playing mini-golf” or whatever.

Again, I’ll pose they complain partially because they don’t have a clear enough concept of what is best for them in their lives, or what they want out of life and what that requires, and so they act on objectives – like schoolwork or fixing their car – out of a sense of “should” and “have to,” and they resist it the entire time.

Someone who exhibits congruence would probably not prefer a flat tire, but if their best rationally determined action is to fix the car (or apply the spare) – given where they want to be and who they want to me – then they’ll fix the car.Why resist the best action? This doesn’t happen unless you never confidently come to conclude what is genuinely best for you. The thing is, you can’t do that unless you understand yourself and are settled within yourself.

In the eyes of the congruent individual, reality is as such, his values are as such, and his objectives are as such. An action is chosen and followed through on, period.

Granted we can calculate the ramifications of every action and thought we ever have, but someone who is settled in themselves will be able to make a best determination and have the confidence and wherewithal to follow through. Decisiveness comes naturally from a clear understanding of the “what”s and “why”s of our lives.

TWO-FACED TENDENCIES

Lets go to another example. Do any of you know someone who conveys a different self to different people? They might totally agree with one person on a certain topic, and then agree completely with someone else who has an opposite view. I think the term “two faced” implies malice, but to be honest I feel that most of these people aren’t consciously malicious – though I’m sure some of them are.

Sometimes the matters at hand are trivial, and the individual tells one friend he likes vanilla ice cream best and he tells his other friend that strawberry is his favorite. This is silly but harmless. What if the matter at hand is more serious? What if this person is talking about who to blame for a conflict within a group of friends, and they end up siding with whoever they are talking to. This is remarkably common, right?

Again I’m going to get bold here and pose an idea to you all. This is something you can take or leave on your own accord of course, but hear me out. I pose that one reason why someone will put up all these fronts with different people is because they do not have a clear conception of their own standards, values, and preferences. They wait for other people to tell them what is right, what is important, even what flavor of soft serve tastes good. They are so disconnected and unsettled from any kind of self understanding or firm beliefs of their own that they talk and act in completely opposite ways around different people.

They haven’t developed the capacity to make distinctions for themselves and stick by them as real and authentic.

ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES OF OTHERS

Another example: have you ever met someone who always seems to be running around for everyone else? These people make commitments with anyone who asks for a favor. If someone asks for help on an essay or needs someone to cover for them in a volleyball game or needs a ride to the airport, this person just agrees to it.

Consequently these people get run into the ground, right? They have so much of other people’s stuff to get done they barely have time for themselves. They rush to fulfill the objectives of others while their own goals aren’t met. At the same time, they commit to so much that often they forget their commitments or they are unable to fulfill them all – and sometimes this gives them a bad wrap. Seems so unfair, huh?

Time to pose another congruence idea. See if this one clicks, again I’m just putting this out there for you to gauge on your own. I pose that these people spend their time running around doing everyone else’s stuff because they don’t have a firm enough idea of what their own “stuff” is, and how to move it forward.

If you find someone who is always rushing around for other people, I encourage you to ask them what’s most important in their own lives and how they plan on going about it. I am almost guaranteeing and you will not get more than a vague, blurry, and broken vision. Here’s why:

If you don’t know how much you have on your plate in terms of projects and objectives, and someone you know requests a bit of your help, your mind will probably first look at your own life and determine if such a commitment is viable.

If your idea of your own aspirations or personal responsibilities and projects look like a gooey grey mass because you haven’t determined any of it firmly, then you’ll refer to that grey mass and assume that you can fit something else in there. And you agree.

On the other hand, if you have your purpose defined, and your specific short and long term objectives defined with next steps to take on each one, then when someone asks for your help on their own project or endeavor, you are no longer referencing a gooey grey mass of pseudo-ideas, you are looking at a well orchestrated map of your future and of your current allocation of time and energy. Hence, you will now make a rational determination depending on your actual ability to take on more activity, instead of aimlessly taking on obligations.

NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH ON PLANS

Have you ever known someone who is always saying they are going to do something, but they never do?

A common example is the person who drinks and says “oooh man, drinking sucks I seriously don’t want to drink anymore, seriously!” Then three days later they’re puking over a toilet saying the same BS?

Why is this? Why?

This happens because the person has to real standards for how they will act and what they have determined to be best for them given what they value in life. They probably don’t make any decisions based on their personal ideals and standards. The way they act with drinking is probably the way they act with everything.

If its perceived to be pleasant – and its a common behavior – then they partake in it. When there’s some pain associated to it, they totally bail on it… until they don’t feel so bad and they run the same circuit.

If there are no deeper understanding in terms of what you stand by as a person, if there is no pain and pleasure attached to real outcomes you want in your life, and the person you want to be – then you can’t help but be yanked by pleasure and pain in the present – you can’t help but be incongruent.

BOREDOM

We could say that someone who is bored just doesn’t have adequate stimulation or material around him to keep his brain occupied. Or we could say that the stimulation doesn’t fit to his specific interests or even to his values, and so he experiences the frustration of boredom.

The ‘quick and cheesy tip’ for this issue of boredom might be to remember to bring around a book when going to the bank or to have fun music to play in the car at all times or to avoid places that don’t offer enough stimulation or information.

These might be good tips, but I think that there is a deeper kind of development that we can achieve that strikes at the root of all boredom: being disengaged in the environment / with our live sin general.

I argue that if you know what you value and are actively oriented toward the attainment of your ideals, being who you want to be, and experiencing what you want to experience, you will always find a way to engage the present moment to exemplify your kind of excellence.

You could lock me in a dark room for 2 hours, and so long as I knew I wasn’t getting locked in forever (in which case I’d be franticly scrambling to get out), I would not get bored. I could do calisthenics, I could give time management speeches to imaginary audiences, I could focus intensely on all that I’m grateful for in my life, I could visualize my desired future, I could catch up on sleep.

The possibilities are always endless, if you seek to engage yourself in life you will find ways to do so – you will find ways to enjoy and learn from the present and orient yourself towards your ideals despite your surroundings – which is fulfilling in itself.

I will wager that the person you know to be bored more than anyone else has a very weak idea of what they enjoy in life, of what they want to do and who they want to be. Hold me to that one. If they did, they would DO SOMETHING about it in the present moment.

LACK OF DRIVE AND MOTIVATION

We might argue that someone without drive or ‘motivation’ is in a situation that lacks opportunity, or that he is born a more lazy person, or that he just doesn’t want to do ‘big things’ – and that doesn’t make him “bad,” does it?

A ‘lazy’ person just has weak reasons to do anything. If he had strong reasons to get up and accomplish something, or develop himself, or help others, or create works of art – he would do it. He just isn’t connected to what is compelling within himself – he isn’t connected to his own deepest values – to what brings him joy – to his dreams.

If he understood what was valuable to him in terms of relationships, fun activities, tasks related to his highest and most desirable goals – he would be striving every second of his life.

If he only had that degree of self understanding, then by virtue of congruence he would not be able to stay away from striving for his ideals – be they huge or small.

ISSUES WITH SELF IMAGE

Some people take the judgements of others to heart, or they take external failures to heart. It seems like these people might just be more ’sensitive’ than others. Their feelings are more easily hurt than most.

Band-aide solution: Tell the person to keep their head up, not feel so bad, and try again. Tell them that they are a winner for keeping up the effort.

Again, I argue that a much deeper issue is underlying this apparent ’sensitivity.’ I argue that a person who is so negatively effected by outside events – such as the judgement of others or apparent ‘failures’ – is in fact just unsure of their own traits and of what constitutes merit for them.

Their identity is not clear at all, so when someone else has a response to them, this is dictating reality to them, that is telling them the kind of person they are. They depend upon the response to see their identity.

Someone who knows the path they are on, who has made their own real distinctions about right and wrong, cool and uncool – they are rooted within themselves in that they know who they are and what they stand for. Outside events happen and people make judgements, but they have their own firm determination of their purpose and standards, and so they don’t feel like a ‘bad person’ and they don’t feel ‘out of place’ when other people respond to them negatively.

The sensitive person merely needs to get a grip on who they are and what they stand for, this will eliminate 98% of their dependance on other people to tell them their worth or quality.

Someone settled in their own world, someone who has determined his path and his character firmly – he will not be disturbed. His reality rests on internal pillars, not external ones.

INDECISION

This idea ties into the ideas of ‘boredom,’ ‘complaining’ and ‘not following through on plans.’

Essentially, someone who understands what they want to do, who they want to be, and what they want to experience will much more easily come to conclusions as to what is best for him in his life than someone with only very value, socially defined standards for themselves.

Someone connected to himself in this way will be able to identify what is best for him because he has a path to follow, while indecision typically plagues he who has no idea what he wants, why he wants it, or how to get it. Such a person will live in indecision.

Someone with a firm idea as to what they want, why they want it, and how they will get it will always be able to come to at least a direction to head in – if not a specific plan.

DEPENDENCE ON PRESENT STIMULUS

Someone who has no idea of what they value, of who they want to be, and of where they’re going with their lives will be very easily swayed by stimulus in the present.

Just like the person who couldn’t follow through on plans – they get sucked into what looks appealing at the time. Someone else has an idea that seems cool – someone else has a sense of certainty – they the incongruent person chases that.

They will tend to respond much more to what seems pleasurable in the moment, avoiding what seems painful in the moment – so much so that it will seem as though they are going against what they value because they do things like lie to friends or steal.

In fact, this isn’t really going against their standards because they don’t really have standards, they have vague ideas of how they ’should’ act, and these reasons are not true to them as individuals.

Someone rooted within can see genuine value in what they stand for. They have made “firm distinctions” (important bit of jargon) about what is important to them, about the kind of behavior they want to permit from themselves and others, about what they aim to do and who they aim to be. The standards that they are connected to within themselves provide pleasure when exemplified, and provide pain when violated.

Hence, the congruent person will have internal factors that they stay consistent to, and they are not only pushed and pulled by the apparent pains and pleasures around them in the present, but they are pushed and pulled by a commitment to what is important to them as people.

Here I’ve just put forward a bunch of different situations in which a lack of congruence plays a role. In the example of the person who resists the present activity, the individual lacks the ability to look at their situation and their own values and objectives in an accurate fashion. This being the case they cannot confidently commit to a course of action without resisting it or double-thinking it – they are not settled. In the second example, the gossiping individual has no firm sense of what is cool, or of what is right or wrong in their own world, and so they incongruently bend their supposed intent to random social pressure – they are not settled. In the third example, the busy body has no idea of his own life’s objectives and of what it will take to get to them, he lacks that crucial self-understanding and so bends to the requests of everyone around him – he is not settled. In the third example, the individual makes a vow to himself to avoid something, but the vow is based on nothing inside himself, it is based on pain in the present moment. As soon as it disappears he acts against what some part of him probably recognizes is best – he is not settled.

This idea of congruence basically implies living on your own terms completely and by your own standards.

It is obvious that this idea of congruence is not the only psychological factor at play in these imaginary scenarios, and its also not the only potentially valid perspective to take on these scenarios. In the first example, the anger might arise more from a surprised disappointment than from an ignorance or lack of confidence in terms of what the best action is. In the second example the gossiping individual might have pressing issues with self esteem and so depends on the acceptance and approval of others. In the third example the man running around doing other people’s tasks might hold exceptionally high standards for himself in terms of making his family and friends productive and joyous. Who knows?

The fact of the matter is – in my humble opinion and empirical first hand experience – getting an understanding of your purpose, of your own values, and of your own distinctions on how to live in accordance with your ideals, a lot of these other petty issues in your life start to straiten themselves out so easily. Soooo easily.

Its not like “okay, self-help book time, I’ll use technique 546 and when I feel resistance well up inside me, I’ll breathe in 13 times slowly through my left nostril…” And look, I have nothing against self-help books or teachings, I guess technically I fit in that category although I don’t use that term too much. But yeah a lot of that stuff is great stuff, but what if we were able to strike at it from a deeper level in terms of coming to meaningful evaluations of the world based on your own standards as a human being and acting along with your ideas in accordance?

Now we’re not as much talking about tips and tricks, we’re talking about personal identity and empowering ways to move through every facet of our experience. Now, you see, we’re talking not so much about the “doing” – about following steps and using memorized techniques – but more about the “being” – about living as a settled, confident, STRONG individual. This is a major aim for me in self-development terms, this kind of change in our deeper nature to becoming a more at ease, capable, joyous, bold person, and I’d certainly want you all to be able to strive for that as well.

__________________________________

There seems to be a theme in the above issues. All issues obviously stem from a lack of congruence and integrity.

They all also seem to have to do with a form of indecision or lack of initiative.

BOREDOM – we cannot find something to do to stimulate or engage our minds

INDECISION – we cannot determine which actions to choose because we have no real reference

TWO-FACED TENDENCIES – we cannot determine which side to take because we aren’t sure ourselves

LACK OF DRIVE AND MOTIVATION – we aren’t compelled to act and so we stagnate

NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH ON PLANS -  we aren’t connected to anything compelling in the plans we committed to, and so we do nothing about actually acting on them

ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF OTHERS – we have nothing to act upon for ourselves and we find ourselves experiencing cognitive dissonance for picking up everyone else’s chores

This theme of indecision is likely because without an understanding of what we value in life, or where we want to be, or how to get there – we cannot adequately act. Decisions are more difficult when there is no meta-purpose to base them off of. Even the decision to make a business’s purpose one of profit is a decision that is either based on what a business is ’supposed’ to be based off of, or it is based upon what we genuinely value in a business to suppose our highest aims.

Having this internal reference provides clarity in terms of what is best for us in our own determination, and it also provides ‘motivation’ in that we follow through due to an action’s relation to what we value most in life.

Many of them also have to do with what looks to be a kind of dependence:

ISSUES WITH SELF IMAGE – dependence on the judgements of others to validate you

COMPLAINING – dependence on ease and pleasure in the present moment

BOREDOM – dependence on specific stimulation in the present moment

TWO-FACED TENDENCIES – dependence on the acceptance and validation of others

DEPENDENCE ON PRESENT STIMULUS – dependence on pain and pleasure in the present to leverage our decisions for us

This dependence likely springs forth from the fact that we are unable to provide ourselves with intellectual stimulation to be engaged in life, we are unable to determine the merit of ourselves, our actions, or our views.

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

Another Look

Previously we covered the topic of “Hyper-intention” when we looked at Frankl’s vocabulary from “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

Here I revisit the term itself in order to make some potentially poignant distinctions about the origins of Hyper-intention. As stated in our previous inquiry, Hyper-intention (HI) is:

An excessive intention to will or force something to be, which in fact ensures that the thing will not be. 

Frankl references that it is common for people to experience HI in a sexual context. When they aim to will – or to force – the experience of orgasm, it becomes something out of their reach. As Frankl puts it;

The more a man tries to express his sexual potency or a woman her ability to experience orgasm, the less likely they are able to succeed. Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed or spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.

I will state that in a sense I agree with Frankl, and I will make a connection that he did not record in his “Man’s Search for Meaning,” and I will also disagree with Frankl in respect to the origins of HI.

A Distinction in HI

It appears as though there is a “category” of HI events that are brought about by a single kind of cause:

The desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control.

The sexual examples would fit into this slightly broader category. It is obvious that orgasm is not under conscious control – while clenching one’s fist is clearly an act that can be committed deliberately. 

However, there are other processes that are controlled more directly by unconscious forces – such as sleep. We cannot “go to sleep” the same way we can extend our leg. It is a “side-effect” or a “by-product” of a specific kind of mental state – possibly of a mind at peace, focused only on comfort and relaxation.

The same can be said of “having fun.” You cannon consciously choose your emotional state the same way you can consciously blink your eyes. The emotional state of “fun” is a by-product of a certain state of mind – possibly of a mind focused on enjoyment of the value of the present moment. We cannot “command” fun to be our experience – neither can we “command” sleep.

When we HI, we are “trying” to do something that we cannot “try” to do. We can “try” to shoot a basketball into a hoop, but we cannot “try” to “have fun” in the same way. 

We want a certain state or experience (orgasm, sleep, fun, etc…) and we “try” for it. If our state of mind does not alter, however, we will be hard pressed to achieve those desired results.

There is no mystical connection between these situations (situations where we desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control) and HI. I pose that they just happen to be commonly found with HI because they are relatively illusive parts of our experience, they are phenomena that seem related to our conscious processes (which they are to a degree), but in fact are not directly controlled by it.

These situations might not be the cause of most HI, but they are notable in that their origin is common and may all lead to HI – and undoubtably many instances of HI share an origin in ‘the desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control.’

A Disagreement

As we have referred to previously, Frankl states that;

Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed or spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.

Given the previous distinction that we made about situations with unconscious origins that we try to control directly, this statement might seem almost undeniable. 

I argue that this is not the case however.

I argue that we can in fact bring about “fun” by making “fun” an end in itself, I argue that we can bring about orgasm by making “pleasure” an end in itself, and I even argue that we can bring about sleep by making “relaxation / sleep” an end in itself.

How can this be so? This bring us back to our previous inquiry into Frankl’s ideas. 

I argue that making fun into and end in itself will only eliminate fun if the original intent for fun was made out of fear that fun would not occur.

I argue that making pleasure into and end in itself will only eliminate the possibility of orgasm if the original intent for pleasure was made out of fear that orgasm would not occur.

I argue that making relaxation and sleep an end in itself will only eliminate the possibility of sleep if the original intent to sleep was made out of fear that sleep wouldn’t occur.

In this way, I argue that it is the impetus to the intent that is a determinant of whether we see a case of HI or not. 

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

Recently I’ve given some thought to an issue that has arisen in some of my own friendships. Of course this blog isn’t an advice column, but I wanted to take a look at a particular part of the friendship dynamic. The issue is: How do we talk to someone about a behavior / choice / activity with concern?

The issue is not quite as simple as it may look. Of course it is infinitely more complex when we talk about involving the other individual’s perception – but just in the context of the potential struggle within ourselves, we might see this potential dilemma.

• It wouldn’t be right for us to give commands to the other person in terms of how they should live their lives. We’d like to respect our friend as a responsible, conscious individual who has their own perspective and makes their own best determinations about what to do.
• It wouldn’t be right for us to go against our best judgement and to withhold a real issue or concern with someone we care for – especially if we wish to voice such a concern in order to benefit our friend or prevent them from harm.

So maybe a friend has has been binge drinking a lot lately, or maybe they have been working on career-oriented projects and not spending as much time with friends, or maybe they haven’t seemed as excited or engaged in their lives anymore. How do we approach the situation and talk to them about the issue?

Giving Them Voice

It has to be mentioned that before confronting the friend about potentially questioning one of their practices or about making a change in their lives and behaviors, it is important to get their perspective first.

In other words, before saying “Hey Jeff, I cam here to tell you that you should stop drinking so much,” its probably more appropriate to say “Jeff, you’re drinking concerned me lately, I wanted to bring up the issue with you as a friend and see when you’re coming from.”

Following this procedure respects the other person in the sense that you are not assuming you understand everything that they do or everything thats going on in their lives. This gives them the opportunity (if they choose to take it) to lay out what’s going on in their lives from their own perspective – which we will respect (as we respect our own judgement in our own lives).

Sometimes, understanding where the other person is coming from clears up any potential issues that may have been looming. Sometimes this is not the case, and we still wish to voice our concern… 

Genuinely Expressing Concern

After giving the other person room to open up on the issue themselves, we can now come forward ourselves – given that our own perspective now includes the perspective of the other person. Now we aren’t coming across like a know-it-all, we’ve taken their side of the story into the equation. 

When we come forward, it is more ethically sound that we do so in the spirit of expressing in concern and not instructing or voicing a command. Again, this person will ultimately make their own decisions as a free and responsible individual. We are bringing an issue to light and not aiming to grab the steering wheel of someone else’s life.

We basically express that there are choices or behaviors that we believe might be detrimental to the person themselves, or to others – and we want to bring some points into their awareness and let them know where we are coming from…

The Ball is in Their Court

Again, all we have done here is given the other person additional thoughts to consider. We haven’t forced them down any paths, only framed our concern from a place of caring.

After the concerns are voiced (either right there or over a span of time), the person we are speaking with will filter your input through their reality and come up with their own conclusions as to what is the best path to take from here.

Sometimes, this choice will not jive with someone’s terms of the friendship, or it will not jive with other commitments – such as mutual business responsibilities. 

If that must be the case, then that must be the case, and at least the heart of the matter was struck and those involved were open and understanding. If a separation must be made it will likely be on civil terms.

Other times, however, a voiced concern of this kind, brought up in a way that respects the other person, will bring about an agreement or an alteration in the other person’s behavior or decisions. Again, this is their choice, but if they want to be considerate – or uphold their responsibilities – or do better for themselves – or treat people differently (or whatever the concern had to do with), then they will be able to make the change themselves.

_____________

What This Might Look Like

Now that some base understanding has been established about an ethical method to bring up concerns, I’m going to run through what this might look like in an actual conversation between two people, Person A and Person B. 

(Obviously such a conversation could go on for hours, and could deal with an infinite number of topics, but here I will provide just enough conversational sustenance to show this kind of communication at work)

A / B: (Small talk blah blah blah)

A: So, B, I wanted to tell you today that I’ve been thinking about how you’ve had the opportunity to go out a lot more with all the money you’ve saved up. I know that you’ve had a lot of fun but I know you’re doing way more drinking, too, and I wanted to talk to you about it.

B: Ah, yeah about that. It has been a lot of fun lately, but yeah what’s got you bothered about drinking?

A: Maybe not bothered, but definitely something I just wanted to voice to you as a friend. I don’t really remember you drinking a few months ago and I don’t know for sure but from what I know you’re drinking almost nightly, and I know you’re driving a lot of the time, too. Its been something I’ve been waiting to bring up because I obviously want to know where you’re coming from. Brian and Steve were upset about it, too, because I think they feel like you treat them a lot differently when you’ve had a few. 

B: Yeah well going out is something I’ve made a point to do more of lately because I love to meet people and with all my working I didn’t have time before. And yeah I have been drinking too, I think it just comes to the territory. I dunno I guess it just happens sometimes, plus it always feels good and helps me just vibe with people. The driving thing is definitely something I could stop doing, but sometimes the guys who were supposed to drive are so much more hammered than me. I had no idea about Brian and Steve, though…

A: I’m not here to boss you around, obviously, but I remember you were always very much against drunk driving and I wasn’t exactly sure if you were doing it or not so I wanted to bring it up. I know it was never something you were cool with, and I think that even though you’re out meeting new people have having a blast you can at least secure a ride or decide not to drink for a night. You need that money to save up for the car, anyway, right? Brian and Steve basically feel like you ignore them and try to talk over them when they’re around you drunk. Its not like they dislike you now, they just don’t know where you’re coming from with all of this. I can see it, too.

B: Yeah I should probably talk to them. The driving issue is something I’ve made a point to work on, too. I have to change that I know…

A: I just wanted to bring these things to the surface in terms of what we were concerned about for your health and for our friendships. Obviously you know driving drunk is ridiculously dangerous, but you might not have known how we’ve been feeling about it and about how we’ve felt when we’re around you drinking.

B: Yeah a appreciate it, I need some time to think…

From here, Person A might lean in more strongly in totally preventing the drinking and driving, and Person B will have to take new inputs into consideration and reevaluate some life choices and lifestyle issues. All in all everyone was respected, openness was maintained, but clarity was brought down onto the issues at hand.

Something I wanted to draw out a bit. Better than yelling at people to “****ing change.”

To be honest, its not the method or the order of how these things are brought up or said as much as it is keeping the important principles in place. 

The basic important principles here seem to be:

1. The facilitation of open communication 
2. A respect for one another as our own decision makers.

I find these tenants particularly important, and the ideas put down here – such as getting the person’s perspective on their own issue before assuming things about the issue, or such as “voicing concerns” over “barking commands” – are basically just tools to be used towards those ends.

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

(Continued from Part 1)

It is obvious that falling involves many factors outside our control: wind, loud noises, the quality of the rope, etc…

My current hypothesis is that the trapeze artists who focus on things that they can directly control (IE: their arms for balance, their next step) or things that they need to pay attention to (IE: a total, empty focus on the rope ahead) are the one’s who are most successful.

I also pose that if this focus on the rope is out of fear, the individual is more likely to fall because of the hidden focus on falling itself (the origin for the fear).

Our behaviors will mirror the focus of our minds. If that focus is genuinely positive we will generally embody all that we think of as positive. In such instances our minds are geared towards the best next step and we feel a kind of confidence and efficacy in our own faculties.

When our genuine focus (IE: our real focus, what we are truly thinking about – this is reflected in our feelings) is on the negative, then steps to failure are what blast into our minds most readily. Now we have behaviors or things to avoid so that we “don’t mess up,” instead of positive behaviors and things to pursue or focus on so that we get to our desired objective.

Hyper-Intention with Conscious and Unconscious Processes: 

As we have stated, hyper-intention stops the thing from happening because behind the wish for the thing to happen is the fear that it won’t happen. That fear is what brings about the desperate wish for the thing, it is the base and the prime influencing force on the mind in instances of hyper-intention.

This is especially the case with phenomena that involve us, but not on a conscious level. For instance, blushing, orgasm, falling asleep, feeling happy, having fun – all of these are things which we cannot intensely wish for in order to get, they are not consciously determined in the same way as lifting our right arm, thinking about a chess game, or yelling loudly – as these are much more directly alterable by our mental and physical faculties.

This might seem odd in that things seem to be quite different in the physical world. If I intensely wish to be the best soccer player in the world, this might help me achieve that goal, even if my intent springs from a fear of not being the best, I can still consciously will myself to train hard and long, and practice constantly in my free time. 

A pitcher who hyper-intends to throw a fastball in the strike zone is probably more likely to do so than a man hyper-intending sleep as he lays down at night. The process is the same, we see a swirl of fear, anxiety, and fear-related thought. The only difference is: the pitcher can consciously will and act in order to bring about the right pitch, while the sleeping man cannot. We do not directly control the mechanisms of sleep and so have little chance of consciously overriding the fear and hyper-intention.

As with the hyper-intending trapeze artist who intends not to fall, the pitcher who hyper-intends not to throw a bad ball will be more likely to fail, to bring his fear of throwing a bad ball into reality. However, he – unlike the man trying to sleep – still has conscious control over his skeletal muscles despite his ineffective thought processes. 

The same tendencies with hyper-intention and sleep likely go for orgasm. If we hone a hyper-intention on finally getting to orgasm, it becomes unlikely that we will attain it. This, again, is because the intention springs from a hidden fear which springs from a hidden mental focus on NOT achieving orgasm – a mostly unconsciously controlled mechanism.

Hyper-Intention / Reflection and the Danger / Social Contexts:

It is notable that instances of hyper-intention usually either involve the potential for what one perceives as “social disapproval” or “life endangerment.” Two remarkably common fears for people in American society are the fear of public speaking and the fear of death. 

Hence, it would be rather odd to hyper-intend the act of getting the peanut butter off the shelf if we are home alone (because we are unlikely to see much risk for danger or disapproval). However, it is probably easier to see how one might hyper-intend the act of shooting a 3-point shot in basketball at the buzzer or of stuttering when speaking with one’s boss, or of “performance anxiety” in bed.

The factors of social disapproval and life endangerment are not unique to hyper-intention, they are merely the most blatantly likely candidates for inducing fear – which obviously plays a pivotal role in creating the hyper-intention experience. 

Freedom from Hyper-Intention / Reflection:

We have determined that the effects of “H-I” and “H-R” originate from their basis in a subtle mental focus upon some outcome or result which is wither deeply desired or detested.

This subtle mental focus manifests as an anticipatory anxiety because of a fear that what we don’t want will happen (IE: We want to sleep but fear that we won’t get to sleep so we don’t. Or, we don’t want to blush in a social situation and we fear that we will blush so we end up blushing – both of these are due to our mental focus, the origin of our mental and emotional experience). 

Hence, freedom from these conditions merely involves a change in focus. An intense focus on the undesired result will only bring about its manifestation. Similarly, an intense focus on the desired result that has its origin in a fear of the undesired result will instead bring about the undesired result.

Of course this is easier said than done. 

It would seem that alleviating the anticipatory anxiety itself would free us from manifesting the undesired results. We might say that we must eliminate the subtle thought of the undesired outcome in the first place (which we described as the origin of the fear), but this may not be necessary.

For instance, I may be thinking about the potential that I will not get to sleep, but if I do not place heavy weight on it, if I do not run hyper-intention on that thought, I will likely still not manifest the undesired result. Here, then, we have not squashed all thoughts of the undesired result, but we have squashed the anticipatory anxiety by eliminating the kind of hyper-intention to that brings about fear.

For instance, I might lie in bed and realize that I might not fall asleep. If this thought strikes fear in me, then the emotion and the thought will create a loop and draw me into hyper-intention / reflection mode. However, if this thought does not build like a snowball with feeling and thought, then it will simply be another passing thought.

Accomplishing the effect of nullifying fear is its own science, but it leads us to look at one of Frankl’s own strategies: paradoxical intent.

The Function of Paradoxical Intent:

What, then, is the function of Frankl’s “paradoxical intent,” given the understanding that we have come to of the other terms and the mental processes and phenomena underlying them?

From what he writes, it appears as though intending exactly what we fear makes it so that our fear itself is hyper-intended and so is not brought to be. Our thoughts shift to a kind of fear turned against itself since we now try to eagerly aim in bringing about our fear (which likely creates a fear that this fear will not manifest). 

Frankl also refers to the humor in such a contradiction, and that in joking with ourselves we may become capable of letting go of fear itself. He seems to think that the ridiculousness of holding such an intention will aide to relieve our minds of the anxiety.

By our model it would seem that anything that would relieve the hyper-intending experience would have to alter one’s focus in one of two important ways:

• Relieve the conscious mind of the thought of the “negative” result or outcome
• Relieve the conscious mind of the resistance to the “negative” outcome 

This is the algorithm for eliminating what we know as “fear” in the first place – for the negatively judged “thing” and resistance to it are the origins of fear (or so this inquiry poses, dive into your own experience).

So how does Frankl’s “paradoxical intent” accomplish this?

It seems to bring a new subtle fear into place where the first was (except this fear facilitates what we genuinely want).

In addition, it frames our entire experience in a way that potentially brings us to focus on the humor and ridiculousness of the situation itself.

(Dear Frankl, I hope I’m drawing the right conclusions with my own thinking and yours.)

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

I recently read – and deeply enjoyed – Victor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning.” What an astonishing story of survival, what an amazing testament to the power of the human mind. 

The horrors that those men experienced every day was overshadowed in my mind, by the amazing ability of human mind to transform that experience into normality or even transcend it into fulfillment.

In this inquiry, I am going to dive into some of Frankl’s own terminology for Logotherapy technique. Here I will specifically focus on the ideas of:

• Hyper-intention
• Hyper-reflection
• Paradoxical intention

My focus will involve coming up with sensible definitions for the three terms, followed by a segment where I will aim to gain insight into the function and of the terms themselves in our own experience. 

A Defining of Terms______________

Frankl does not provide a precise definition of the terms I am exploring here (unless I am unaware of a source). ‘Paradoxical intent’ is the exception, for which Frankl provides most of an adequate definition. For the other two, I will use context and Frankl’s in-book briefing of the terms in order to construct a definition.

Hyper-intention:

An excessive intention to will or force something to be, which in fact ensures that the thing will not be. 

Hyper-reflection:

An intensified attention to something within ourselves which prevents that something from coming to be.

Paradoxical intent:

(“Based on the twofold fact that fear brings about that which one is afraid of, and that hyper-intention makes impossible what one wishes”)

The individual is asked to intend – if only for the moment – precisely what he fears. In doing so, on changes one’s focus and relinquishes one’s fear.

Inquiry into Terms______________

I will now proceed to explore the relations, functioning, and application of these ideas presented by Frankl. 

Difference between Hyper-intention and Hyper-reflection:

If we intend something intensely, does is not make sense that our attention is on that thing?

It seems as though this would be the case. The difference is, if we intend something, then we have a specific positive or negative focus on that thing. For example, if I had a tendency to blush in social situations, then I might very intensely intend on not blushing.

With attention, however (the factor involved in Hyper-reflection), my focus needn’t be necessarily positive or negative given my concern. My attention could be intensely focused on my blushing itself, or my attention could be intensely focused on my yearning not to blush. My attention can be, but need not be, aligned with my intention.

Hence, Hyper-intention seems to be one’s genuine yearning in a given situation (wishing and wanting not to blush), which leads to the yearning not being fulfilled (one blushes anyway).

Hyper-reflection, then, is one’s intense conscious focus during a period of Hyper-intention (which is aimed at oneself in this example, yearning for a specific end).

The Functioning of Hyper-reflection:

It seems possible that if we intend something we can put our attention on that same thing (intending on sleep and putting our attention deeply on sleeping). In Frankl’s work, this will bring about the non-happening of the phenomena. 

It is possible that we intend something but put our attention on the opposite of that something (intending for sleeping but putting our attention on our inability to actually fall asleep). I would argue that this, too, would bring about the non-happening of the event. 

How can both of these hyper-reflections, which focus attention on opposite targets (getting to sleep and the inability to sleep) have the same effect? I believe that it is because their origin is the same. The hyper-intention and either hyper-reflections, I pose, are triggered by the same “anticipatory anxiety” – term Frankl uses himself. 

This anxiety is that we will not fall asleep, and the fear of not sleeping is the origin of the intent to sleep and the attention on sleeping or not sleeping. All have their origins in fear.

In order to have this fear one must think about not sleeping, one must imagine that one will not fall asleep – one’s mental focus must be on the inability to sleep – which by itself makes sleep difficult (especially because sleep is not something we have direct conscious control over).

Hence, our intention is on sleep because we fear not sleeping, and our attention has something to do with sleep (either our wish to sleep or our inability to sleep) all because of the seed of fear.

This fear keeps a portion of our minds focused on not allowing the desired outcome to take place. Why? Not because it is the fear in and of itself, but because the perpetuated thought that stirs the fear and lies behind the fear is “I won’t be able to get to sleep.” Hence, the mind – even if in a subtle way – holds the thought of not sleeping and remains focused on it, and so does not allow sleep to occur.

Applying Hyper-Intention / Reflection- 

I have posed thus far that “anticipatory anxiety” holds something back from happening because it focuses part of the mind on that thing not happening (the origin of the fear / anxiety in the first place).

What if our anticipatory anxiety had to do with something that was much more underneath or conscious control? For instance, what if we had anticipatory anxiety about crashing a car into trees or telephone poles. 

This would bring about a hyper-intention to stay on the road, a hyper-reflection would occur which would bring attention to either crashing or not crashing. 

It would be my guess that a frightened driver (with the above thought processes) would be more likely to get into an accident than a driver whose thoughts were not on crashing. Having this subtle focus in one’s mind would likely make one more likely to manifest the feared behaviors and bring about the feared events (again, not because they are feared, per say, but I pose that it is because the origin of the fear is the mental focus on crashing in the first place). 

What about trapeze artists who choose to brave perils on a daily basis? Surely they have to think about falling and dying constantly. So how do they stay up?

I would actually argue that the best trapeze artists are those who think of peril and death the least. It may be that those who think of their next step forward or the rope itself are the most successful. It might also be said that the best trapeze artists are those who have the clearest mind – void of any potentially corrupting content…

(Continued in Part 2)

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

It comes as no shock that some of the people with the most friends, the most money, the most fame and social validation, and the most intelligence are also some of the saddest people on the face of the earth.

Its no surprise, then, that people can some of the “dumbest,” poorest, least well-known people are also the happiest on the face of the earth.

Is this because external benefits necessarily lead to pain, and external “detriments” lead to pleasure? Certainly not.

Its because – on both sides of the coin of life conditions – we get used to things. Our conditions become the norm and loose any tangible effect on our life’s enjoyment.

Everything becomes “normal.”

This understanding seems daunting in the sense that all of our work towards changing our conditions can be recognized as being divorced from our actual quality of life (though this needn’t be the case, as we will see). However, lets look at this interesting facet of the human condition in light of evolution:

What if we as human beings had a determined level of external benefits that made us “happy,” and anything below a certain point in terms of these benefits would make us “sad”?

If this were to be the case, those of us who were “sad” would feel so indefinitely unless they could alter their conditions, which they might not have the energy to do in a melancholy state. 

In addition, those of us who were “happy” would perpetually feel this way unless their conditions changed. Hence, cavemen with plenty of food, plenty of mates, [and whatever other benefits] would sit in a state of bliss, possibly unmotivated to take action.

Instead, we feel happy in proportion to how we perceive our life conditions to be, in terms of how we assemble the mental puzzle of our life situation and conditions – in terms of the meaning we associate to our lives.

Hence, we do not remain perpetually happy because of an increase in beneficial conditions in our lives. This might lead to unhealthy lethargy (what I pose as a possible evolutionary rationale). Instead we accept our new conditions as baseline and strive for more! Hurray humans! Hence we continue to look for opportunities for more – a tendency that likely served us very well as early humans.

The thing is, this “grasping for more” – even if we get what we’re grasping for – doesn’t entail happiness and fulfillment.

An Innate Yearning for “Benefit”?:

It is possible that we are wired to feel good when we believe we have been “benefitted,” “upgraded,” or “bettered” in some way? Think about it this way:

You give a poor child in Guam $20 US, and he might scream and jump in the air. He can now buy food for his family and maybe even a nice bicycle to get around on. He thinks he is being benefitted, and so experiences that joy. 

If the child was fabulously wealthy, $20 US would mean nearly nothing to him. He does not feel benefitted – so there is no increase in his emotional state.

Again, there would of course be instances where one’s own perception is irrelevant and positive emotions would ensue regardless, such as:

- If one is given some form of emotional state-inducing drug

- If one is fed after a long fasting (this involved the cognitive aspects as well, but it is innately enjoyable in that it sustains the body and mind with nourishment and “tastes good” to our senses)

However, in almost all instances where we feel an increase in positive emotional state due to our mental framing of the incident, is it not arguable that our own perceived “benefit” or “upgrade” or “betterment” is the cause of this emotional shift?

Obviously there are other factors to our experience of happiness besides our opinion of how “benefitted” we are. These factors might include (but wouldn’t be limited to):

- Constant, blatantly noticeable, physical pain

- Conditions of the brain and its chemicals (genetic disposition towards depression, effects of head trauma)

AGAIN I say “However:” of those instances where we do see notable increase in our own emotional state due to the way we frame our reality / perceive our world, it could be that the idea of being “benefitted” is involved. 

This ideal that our positive emotions are increased when we believe we are becoming / experiencing “more” is only one model, but it might be a useful model to look at in light of the rest of this article.

What We Must Do for Happiness:

Given the dynamics of our experienced quality of life, we must find ways to frame our experiences (including our memories and anticipated future) in a positive light, in a way that we associate to things we value, possibly in a way that enables us to be “bettered” by the experiences. 

We must find meanings in our experience that encourage us and bring about positive emotion in us.

__________________

Here are 2 tools that we might use to deal with the fact that we tend to take anything in our lives to be “normal” in short order:

__________________

The Virtue of Gratitude:

Despite covering the idea of gratitude in the article on the “past,” I wanted to mention it again here in vastly more specific detail – as I believe gratitude of the present to be uniquely important.

Gratitude is understood to bring about positive emotions and aide in our enjoyment of life. The reasoning behind this has been explained by far more qualified people than I, but I think I have a have formulated about as concise a definition as possible, and I’ve never seen it frame this way before:

Gratitude does us the favor of framing anything (potentially, every aspect of our life experience) as a benefit, as something fresh and appreciable. It has the potential to frame our lives entirely in the positive because we can take every sense, every feeling, every event as a gift to our consciousness.

By being grateful in our lives, we immediately are able to appreciate all of life as a poor and starving man might value $20 US. 

Instead of coming to our experience with the general perspective of “yep, this is reality,” we come to our experience with the perspective of “wow, this is fantastic!” Bringing this positivity (and even excitement) to the present allows us to perpetuate the feelings of a kid at christmas. Instead of looking at things practically and taking them into consideration, the grateful person can find ways to make any experience seem fun or encouraging.

“Having Purpose”:

We can also use a powerful “purpose” to bring empowered meaning into all aspects of our lives. Personally, I think about this in two ways:

1- We establish ideals of virtue, mindset, and behavior

2- We establish grand plans for the positive changes we would like to make in our world

These could roughly be referred to as “inner” and “outer” purpose, though I no longer make much of a distinction.

With regards to “inner” purpose, we can make each moment meaningful by exemplifying the kinds of virtues and behaviors that we deem best – we use the present moment as a stage to embody our highest ideals. For instance, if we deeply value learning and sharing enjoyable experiences, we can bring these values to the forefront in any circumstances. If we are as home, we might study something fascinating and important (possibly something that will aide in our external purpose), or we can visit a friend and create enriching experiences with that person. Even standing in line at the bank we can chat with the people next to us or do some reading (Podcasts would be even easier in this instance). In this way, even relatively tragic events or periods can serve to hone us closer to our ideals – and so bring empowering meaning to our lives.

With regards to “outer” purpose, we can take each moment as a potential stepping stone towards our grand vision, towards the change we want to make in our lives. This could be putting away money to save for our child’s education, this could be learning or writing to work towards creating a great book, or it could be putting in effort to start our own company. This outer purpose must of course be aligned with our inner purpose, our ideals about how we want to live and what we want to make for ourselves and for others with human potential. In doing so, we are drawn towards creating concrete outward manifestations of what we value most. This is something that can compel us to enthusiastic action in any moment of our lives. This aides in providing us with empowered meaning.

Hopefully this article gave you a bit of perspective on how we come to see our situation as “normal,” and how we might make our own experience extraordinary. I’d certainly love your feedback!

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

Today something dawned on me. I know some people who are capable of giving very poignant, insightful advice when others ask for perspective. In a compassionate way, they calmly collect the facts, find proper ways to present them, and talk about dealing with the issue itself.

Yet… at the same time, these same people are capable of the most absurdly irrational decisions and states.

I started to think if we all didn’t exhibit this dichotomy. We all experience something different every day, every moment – of course we’ll have times where we are more rational than others… right?

Even given the fact that we’re in different situations constantly, somethings still seemed off. How could the same person be able to totally loose themselves in a seemingly silly situation, but at the same time be able to advise others (in the most calm of fashions) through a similar situation?

Some obvious reasons came to the fore:

- If your car breaks down, you are likely to be more frustrated that you are when your friend tells you that his car has broken down. Hence, it is easier to be “emotionally detached” when you’re concerns are not as involved.

- One day we might be in an incredibly relaxed state (maybe we spent the day reading – focusing on pleasant things – and just got out of a warm bath) while another day we might be tense or frustrated (maybe we haven’t slept in a long time because of a project at work, and we’ve been focusing on our inability to accomplish the task). Hence, we have some variability in terms of our bodies and our surroundings that can effect our emotional state and bring about different responses.

What came to my mind, though, was something completely different than the above factors. I thought about how our context effects how we perceive ourselves or our world, and about how that can effect our behavior. I refer to the different “selves” or variations of demeanor / traits that we exhibit as “social imprints.”

Do you notice the way you talk when you’re alone in a room with a grandparent, as opposed to when you’re alone in a room with a friend from school?

Have you noticed a cashier at the counter communicate differently with you than with their coworkers?

Have you ever noticed how a sports coach might act different on the field than he does when he goes out by himself to the bar?

Different settings warant different behavior, obviously. I cannot “do” the same things in a library as I could on a saturday night on the dance floor. Theoretically I could, but my actions would be out of place. This is easily understood.

HOWEVER, I pose that something more significant is going on:

When we are in a given context, we associate certain thoughts, rules, and behaviors with that context (many times this is easy to see in social contexts). Our associations immediately have in influence on “who we will be” in that context. We cue off of these contextual hints to determine how we will present ourselves, how we will walk, talk, think, even feel.

Some contexts might make us feel good and give us access to fully express ourselves freely. Other contexts might generally give us access to limited internal resources. 

For instance, some people might be tremendously social, loud, expressive, and fun at the bar every weekend, yet be extremely quite in a classroom setting. 

Lets say this person doesn’t drink – what is the difference between his “bar self” and “class self?” Maybe he’s more tired during the day, maybe he doesn’t eat breakfasts and often feels stomach pain in morning classes. Or… just maybe… he associates the bar with certain activities, certain ways of behaving and levels of fun. He might see the bar as less judgmental, and more socially active. Because perceives the bar to be different than the classroom, he doesn’t end up socializing.

Sometimes, we have access to an imprint that we deem to be best for us in the present moment. We feel and think exactly as we would like to. This might come in the form of confidence, expressiveness, friendliness, etc… 

Other times, we notice that we do not have access to all the internal resources we would like in the present situation

So how does this relate to the example we started off with in this article?

I pose that when someone comes to us and sits us down to talk about an issue of theirs, the context is conducive to an “imprint” of a rational, calm, positive “self.” 

In the particular context of this example, we see a friend approach us as though we were the giver of answers, as though we already had the ability to grant positive wisdom. Hence, we feel imbued with this ability ourselves.

It is often said that we see ourselves as we think others see us, we believe about ourselves what others believe in us. This social psychology theory may be a subset of the general idea that in different social contexts (and contexts in general) we have access to different imprints.

NOTE:

It should be understood that not all imprints come about through a change in social interaction. For instance, we may walk differently an have a different facial expression when we are out in an open sunny field than if we are walking through a dimly lit, creepy basement – or we may access a different “self” when we’re alone and working out as opposed to when we’re alone reading a book.

__________________________

We aught to be aware of these different “selves” that we express in certain instances.

How do we act differently around our parents and our friends?

How do we act in class or at work and how do we act outside these contexts?

In what ways to we change our expression, speech, etc… when we feel as though we are being judged as opposed to not being judged?

MOST IMPORTANTLY:

What triggers do we use to access these different “imprints?” Do you only express yourself most openly when you feel as though you are the leader? Do you only express your “real” self when you know someone for 6 months… a year? When hanging out with a group of people, do we have access to our highest self only when we believe ourselves to be better (in some regard)  than the other members of our group?

At any given time, if you aren’t feeling like you have access to the resources (possibly of creativity, of confidence, of excitement) that you want in that moment, you likely have some rules for switching imprints that are restricting you from doing so. Determine what you want to feel, and come to understand how (in other times in your life) you gained access to that “self.”

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

In the self-development community, “positive self talk” is always emphasized. It’s recognized as essential. It’s “101″ stuff, you’ve gotta know it.

We strive to find the good in situations, to focus on the good within people and give them the benefit of the doubt, we focus on our strengths and on the positive aspects of our lives.

I agree wholeheartedly that these adaptive (healthy, growth-oriented) mind-frames are important in feeling as good as we can, seeing opportunities in front of us, and making the most of them confidently.

What if we cursed and yelled every time someone did something that we deemed to be counter-productive in terms of our own goals? If this was the case, most of the people we care about most dearly would be victims of our angry wrath.

What if each time our plans were thwarted, we focused exclusively on that one challenge – labeled it a “problem” – and felt terrible about it? If we followed this method, we’d be feeling so bad we’d never want to set plans or projects ever again.

The virtue of “positive self talk” is integrally related to taking the “empowering perspective.” This involves taking control of the meaning of situations – and so taking control of our feelings, our internal resources involved, and our behaviors related to the event. We can interpret a situation a million and a half ways – we aught to aim to take the facts into account and frame them in a way that will excite us and bring about acceptance, excitement, or empowered action, rather than anger, sorrow, or boredom.

However, there comes a point where this “empowered perspective” starts to get skewed, and the facts – as they might be understood in a reasonable light – become twisted to merge with our positive, empowered mind-frame.

_________

For instance, someone might tell themselves that on their way to work, all the lights that they see will be green – thus facilitating their timely arrival for work.

Already this kind of bold optimism seems to go against what might reasonably be determined to be the “facts” of street lights: they do not pick and choose who they want to let pass at what times.

This same person driving to work might hit a red light, and then promptly tell themselves that this red light is truly what is best, because it is timing them to hit only green lights from here on out.

Again this belief seems bold. This goes beyond the empowering perspective. In the empowering perspective, one might simply tell oneself “well, I’m at a red light. This isn’t “bad” unless I think it is. If I’m a little late for work then I’ll learn from this and leave earlier next time. As for now, there’s nothing I can do about this red light, I can’t change it with telekinesis, so I’ll accept it and enjoy this fun song on the radio.”

This perspective seems to actually assert that whatever is happening is happening IN LINE with one’s own betterment, with one’s own objectives.

__________

This belief might be fun to tinker around with when it involves issues of stop lights, but what about tragic events?

Many times, the same view is taken. People who loose and eye, or a leg, or two legs, or even a CHILD often express how the event had a meaning, how it was actually BEST for their own benefit (be it connection with God, personal growth, understanding of fulfillment, appreciation of life, etc…).

The belief that the entire universe acts in line with what is truly best for our betterment does not seem logical. Are you the only conscious being whose desires are being met by the entire universe? If that is the case, how can we both believe it?! Also, if the universe works continuously to fulfill our desires, why must we work for them, why must we experience struggle, why aren’t we perpetually in a state of infinite bliss?

Here’s the thing, though. Having this belief doesn’t seem to have any blatantly negative consequences other than sounding like you’re from California. It only brings us to truly believe in the meanings we assign to things, and it may also give us a sense of confidence in the universe itself when we believe that it works with us. This one belief can keep us in an almost permanent place of empowering perspective.

As someone in the personal development field, I see this issue as almost a dilemma in terms of our self development path. do we take on this belief and see what it can do for us, or do we aim to see things objectively (whether or not that involves a belief that the universe is always following our will) and take an empowering perspective on it.

For now, do some internal exploring. Take these thoughts and decide for yourself.

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

It is common for people to say that what’s most important to us becomes blatantly obvious when we are on our death bed. I believe it was Steven Covey who said “nobody on their death bed wishes they had spent more time in the office.“ 

Imagine you go to the doctor complaining of headaches, and find out that you have a bring tumor and 1 week to live. Only a single week left in your life. What runs through your mind? What is it that you want most for this last week?

I think that this type of hypothetical scenario has its place, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Such a thought experiment usually concludes with “and thats why family and loved ones are all that really matters” – or something along those lines. 

Don’t get me wrong here, blogreaders of the interweb, I certainly love my family. In fact, I have been more engaged in my close friendships and familial bonds than ever before in my life – and its a beautiful thing. 

What I am proposing, is that our careers, creative outlets, hobbies, and even wealth DO in fact hold value to us, but the situational value of these things is depleted in the deathbed scenario. Hence, I believe that it is not appropriate to say “well, people on their deathbeds don’t value all that stuff, why should you think its valuable?”

Allow me to explain.

Let us say that before this terrible brain tumor incident, you had stayed at the office late to save up for a 20 foot motor boat. You’d always wanted a boat to go exploring with or to take the kids out on. Before your deathbed experience, you might have been excited at the office, engaged in your work and eager to purchase the boat of your dreams. You thought you had so much time ahead of you to enjoy the boat in whatever way you wanted.

On your deathbed, the boat of course seems useless, you certainly cannot enjoy it now – and so its value is diminished in your eyes. Now you might curse the days you spent in the office working towards it.

Am I saying that the deathbed scenario skews the value of things for us? Not necessarily, no… but in this case, it might be so. I do believe that the impact of the deathbed situation can bring about shifts in our values that do not necessarily constitute realizations of what is genuinely best for our fulfillment. It can be a situation where fear and doubt invade our minds and make us yearn for certain things over others.

We might compare the deathbed situation to another potentially traumatic situation – a breakup. Lets say that you are happily committed and engaged with your partner, and out of the blue they break up with you. In this situation, we may come to believe that the relationship is what was really most important in life. Since we no longer have it, we might lean on our good friends and close family members and view our bonds with them as high value – while we seem to “realize” how other things like career advancement, wealth, and hobbies are rather meaningless.

In both cases, we appear to come to the genuine “truth” of our experience, we seem to find the philosopher’s stone to our fulfillment.

I argue, however, that in both cases the perception of our needs is grossly oversimplified. In both cases we are in a scarcity position – a position where something has been or will be taken from us. 

Lets conduct a thought experiment and twist up the components. 

What if you lived and worked with your entire family – parents, spouse, children all under one roof. Lets say that your relationships with your family are fantastic – you give each other perspective on life, spread joy through jokes and stories, and genuinely have positive intent towards one another. 

What if twice a week you were able to practice painting. Hypothetically you own the only set of paint brushes in existence. Lets say painting is absolutely something that you adore – it is a way for you to connect with yourself, to release tension, to experience a merger of action and awareness. It is a massively important facet of your life.

One day you awaken to realize that all of your artwork and painting supplies are mysteriously gone. Maybe they had been stolen, maybe you lost them – but either way, you know you’ll never see your artwork again and you can’t buy new painting supplies because you had the only brush set ever created. You become upset and distraught. 

If in this distressed state, someone asks you about what is important in life, do you think family would still be the first thing you’d mention? My guess is that in this case it would not.  My guess is that since you are with family all the time and art is your treat (which you have recently lost), you will mention art early on in your list of important aspects of fulfillment.

From this perspective, you have recently lost art. Recently, art is what has effected your quality of life most poignantly. Hence, you may say “when it really comes down to it, artistic expression is what matters most. Nothing else can provide us with such a rejuvenating, expressive experience, art is what makes us human.”

Does this seem like wisdom? Does it sound as profound as maybe… the “family is all that matters” proclamation?

From what I can tell, the “family” and “art” situations have one common thread: loss brings their perceived value to the forefront. They are the largest influencers of our emotion at that time, which implies that they are the largest influencers of our quality of life during that time, which means they are what will appear to “matter” most during that time.

In the case of the deathbed, we might know we will not have time to value out material possessions, and we might know we will not have time to see the fruits of our projects and productive or creative labor. Its is likely that in such a situation we would know that soon we would never see our family or friends again. In a situation filled with fear and uncertainty, the comfort of warm human contact might be the most fulfilling experience imaginable. 

We see something that we believe will fulfill our needs, and it becomes priority number one.

If you were the artist in the other example, having a loving family with enriching interactions is expected, is normal. In this case, the rare instance of painting, or artistic expression – thats what is unique – thats what has that illusive shimmer that you (and all humans) are so drawn to. 

Hence, when this creative outlet is taken from you, you deem it to be priority number one. Whatever has the illusive shimmer often has the falsely percieved quality of the “fix.” It is what will “make things better.” We might say “If I could only have *******, I know I would be fulfilled forever, I know its all that matters.” 

This, of course, is an illusion. We cannot be sustainably fulfilled by something else, by a factor added to us from the outside. Be it an outlet for art, be it romance or sex, be it material possessions, be it rank or accolades. 

Think of a peasant man from the 1700s, who never was able to go far from his small farming town. All he ever wanted to do was travel, see new people, enjoy new sights. Imagine transporting him to the present, and giving him all the money he could ever need to travel wherever he wanted and stay wherever he wanted. 

How long would his bliss last for? Would he float in a sea of bliss for the rest of his life?

Imagine a man at age 40 who has been blind since age 7, and has been depressed about his impairment ever since. What if he regained his ability to see overnight.

Would his depression dissipate, forever replaced by joy?

The answers are all “NO.”

I am not at all pessimistic about the human condition, but it is silly to believe that ANY external change could bring about infinity sustained emotion, either “good” or “bad.”

Why is this the case? I’m not sure, but it seems likely that evolution designed us so that external changes would not be capable of permanently emotionally shifting us.

Short possible explaination as to why this is:

There was a caveman who became lastingly depressed after not catching a rabbit – he wasn’t motivated at act and to catch other rabbits because he was sad and mopey all the time and so he starved and died.

There was another caveman who became lastingly joyous and content after successfully catching a rabbit – he wasn’t motivated to act and to catch other rabbits because he just sat around and smiled in glee and so he starved and died.

This has to do with the mechanism of “becoming normal” that occurs in our experience all the time. We get used to EVERYTHING. If you don’t believe me read “Man’s Search for Meaning.” For more on this topic, check out my article called “Things Get Old” under the “Inquiry” category. 

So, where are we going with all of this?

So… what matters?

What matters to us at any time is what impacts our emotional experience – and so the experience of our quality of life – at any given time. This might be familial love, this might be romantic love, this might be curing a debilitating disease, etc… The fact of the matter is that “what matters” is not static at all – and so to call anything “what matters” seems tremendously inaccurate. We have many facets of needs, none of which are more important than the others until we focus on them and depend on them.

To the depressed and blind man, the beautiful realm of sight might be “what matters” (assuming his familial / creative / romantic love are satisfactory… or at least assuming that the idea of these factors do not effect his emotional states more than the idea of blindness). However, if he gained his sight back, something else would probably become “what matters.”

We don’t magically gain a profound insight into what matters for our lives by being on our deathbed or having something taken from us. For some people, these instances might spur insightful thought processes about what we associate pleasure and value to – or what we associate pain to. 

What these extraordinary situations do is they change what we believe most effects our emotional state – and so this causes a change in “what matters” of us, sometimes in the short term and sometimes in the long term.

________

To wrap up, I believe that having an idea of our core values is very useful. However, it would be foolish to believe that any one factor is sufficient for our holistic fulfillment in life.

The illusive shimmer is so very appealing, and its so easy to believe that one facet of our lives – one person, one event, one award, one accomplishment or series of accomplishments - can bring lifelong satisfaction. 

However, we must keep in mind that no external event can ever create lifelong emotional states. It is entirely dependant on the value we associate to it and how much weight we allow it to hold in our minds.

• Understand that there is no concrete label on what is meaningful (this goes for ourselves, never mind the entirety of our rare).
• Do not be convinced by the illusive shimmer.
• Develop in your entirety, taking into account all the important facets of your life.

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!