When is a person most likely to do something, or complete a task?
Is it not when the task itself is already half complete?
At that point all that’s left is to put it in the bag.
When we see a task is already on its way to completion, it means it’s tangible and doable, by that definition, there can be no excuse.
Am I not most likely to complete a task when I’m fully awake or at the time that I am most awake?
Beginning to offer these questions to the mind, puts it in a position where it’s obligated to answer and ultimately make a choice.
At the time that I wake up, I’m most likely to take a cold shower soon after. If the mind is already awake, then it has no reason not to get it done. If the choice between two options is presented, one being to stay in bed, comfortable and resigned; the other, being to get up, be slightly uncomfortable, but assigned and ready to take what is mine. The second option is always most viable and more gratifying.
When it comes to optimizing one’s life, it’s a process of management, a set of choices, a set of constraints that make a certain action more favorable.
The process of management is about arranging one’s environment in a certain way that reveals a realistic picture of reality.
As human beings, human nature supposes that action is only viable when it’s out of fear, when cornered or pressured into an unfavorable position. It’s not the most optimal habit to have, but it is nonetheless a natural quality.
In order for change to be made, a problem has to be identified first.
Usually the first issue is a lack of awareness of the problem. To address this, I use a process of disintegration.
Disintegration is a form of discarding unnecessary items and lowering the degree of environmental stimulation in order to condition the mind to perform a favorable assignment.
To put simply, disintegration is an attempt to corner the mind, where it is forced to make a decision between two options.
The options are either to; A: do absolutely nothing; or B: find a way or make a way to figure out a solution.
In the selection of option A, the mind is free to do nothing, it is free to think, stand, move, watch, stare etc. However, it is not free to do anything else.
In an environment that has been made inaccessible, and cut down to the lowest possible degree of stimulation, the mind is soon enough obligated to make a decision.
Automatically, the mind will default to distraction and doing nothing, because it has no awareness of possible solutions.
The probable cause of this dilemma, stems from misguided forms of seeking for an alternative solution.
The first form of misdirection is comfort. Comfort is a passive way of resigning from the path or course of obtaining another solution. In the consistent efforts of seeking, the mind becomes drained, perhaps overstimulated, and as a result longs for comfort.
The second form of misdirection is self infliction. Self infliction supposes that in order to diminish the sense of one’s suffering, a greater pain must be inflicted to lower the degree of that recognized pain. In other words, pain tolerance. By increasing one’s pain tolerance, it therefore reduces the perception of that pain, making it more subtle and less pronounced.
Both forms of misdirection are attempts to fight the battle. In simple analogy, both forms are merely equal opposites, they are merely the opposing action of the same sustaining problem.
Comfort seeking and passivity is a form of nursing one’s wounds.
Self infliction is another way of dealing with pain.
Both sides are simply modes of alleviation.
“If a sense of disease produces suffering and a sense of ease antidotes suffering, disease is mental, not material.” —Mary B. Eddy
The question then becomes, who or what has the need to alleviate? Who or what perceives itself to be in pain? Who is it that perceives itself to be hurt?
That would be the ego. The problem being dealt with then, is the sense of its existence.
If the existence of the ego has been threatened, it will feed into misguided solutions and lead one into detours and all sorts of dilemmas.
We’re dealing with a child. One that perceives changes as punishment and falls flat at the face of a wall.
What do we do when faced with a wall? We collapse its foundation, clear the path, and calmly walk through.
What’s the sustaining foundation of the problem?
What is keeping this problem fixed in place?
The solution is usually carefully hidden, which is the reason for the tendency to get lost.
Comfort seeking and pain infliction are equal forms of running from the problem.
It is effectively running in an aimless direction, hoping to find an answer and then falling face flat onto the ground.
But that’s exactly the problem, it’s the need for a definitive answer, and also the desire to alleviate or absolve which is always just ahead of itself.
The endless pursuit is the addiction. Addicted to getting and receiving and the absence of having and obtaining. Addiction to emotions and feelings.
The sustaining foundation of the problem is then again, identity, specifically, the ego.
The ego is that which perceives itself to be hurt, in other words, the victim. This archetype keeps itself trapped in its own box, sustained in an endless chase.
If the problem stems from the need to search for a definitive answer, then that is the trap.
Waiting for a definitive answer or an answer that cannot be found, is exactly what keeps the ego in control. That is what keeps the self from becoming distinct. It’s the lack of action and passivity.
If the solution is to switch the focus from obtaining a clear answer to the process of working to find a solution, attention and energy can be spent more wisely.
What this looks like in practice is, dismissing the temptation to seek for a complete answer; that is, running in a sort of expedition, and also dismissing the temptation to wait and passively leave thoughts dwelling in the air. The focus is to turn concerns that are harboring at bay and work on dissecting it piece by piece. This is substantially more effective than standing around.
Identify the concern; Unravel the issues; Expose the problem; Offer possible solutions.
At the point where we are given possible solutions that are not complete but suggest something can be done, it puts the ego on the line where it can’t produce any excuse and is obligated to give way to the self.
IF a possible solution is presented, it forces a decision be made in a way that produces the intention to act.
To let go of the need to have a clear answer, to not be afraid to act and to dissolve inhibition into the intention to act.
If the awareness and focus of one’s problem is the sustained existence of the ego, that means the clear intention to focus on the process, is the death of that self awareness.
The solution is to give up looking for a way out of the situation, only then will the wall collapse, clearing the path and allowing one to calmly walk through.