“How much of this?  How much of that?  When is it too much and when is it too little?”

These questions seem to apply to nearly every “good” and “bad” quality/activity I can think of.  The best answer I have found to them is:  do enough or as little of everything I need to bring myself into a state of harmony—a state of visceral peace where my sense of time drops away, and so when I lay down at night, my molecules tell me I have done exactly what I needed to do.

Now due to the fact that I am a unique configuration of behaviors and preferences, there is no clearly defined recipe that will bring me into harmony.  That being the case, only one approach seems to make sense:

Experiment and adjust, experiment and adjust.

To be at peace, I have often found it necessary to go to war with my inner weaknesses.  Then, after I have allotted them the space they warrant within my head and my heart, I make friends with them, and either allow them reign when I deem it appropriate, or put them to work for me.

Perhaps there’s a better way, but I have yet to find one.

I don’t really get spiritualists who think it’s useful to be “detached from the world,” or “detached from their body.”

Why not use my mind to optimize my body, which is a necessary channel through which to express and support my mind?  Why not employ feedback from the world to ensure that my perception is aligned with my internal and external realities?

I understand that artificial delineations can create useful reference points which can inform my strategy, but I don’t understand the usefulness behind designating one thing as definitively “spiritual/unspiritual,” “good/bad,” or some other simplistic label that reduces my ability to clearly perceive the nuance behind phenomena.  

The inevitable passage of time makes everything into a game; will I accomplish my goals within the allotted time, or won’t I?  In the past, I’ve fallen prey to the belief that simple persistence would carry me to victory, but that’s not the case if you account for the inevitability of time.

So I’m trapped in a game whether I like it or not.  A crucial step in “winning” is acknowledging that constraint.

I find the phrase “common sense” to be an oversimplification.  It seems to roughly translate into “reliably demonstrating good judgment.”  In order to do that, these requirements seem to be necessary:  calling oneself out on BS, so that personal biases don’t get in the way of function; being proactive, so that opportunity doesn’t fade away; and constantly, CONSTANTLY saying humble, so that one can act without the hindrance of thinking they know what they don’t, and so that they can adjust their strategy according to new evidence.

Not trying to sound pessimistic, but these qualities don’t seem very common at all.

There are many jewels in the honest mud.

Assess, aggress.  Assess, aggress.  This simple pattern of action seems to orient me toward a positive outcome, no matter what the scenario.

*apologies for my military-influenced verbiage, when I use the word “aggress,” it’s framed within the context of strategic aggression, or aggressively serving my strategy.  So in dealing with others, the best way to aggressively serve my strategy is often to demonstrate kindness and caring; outside of abnormal circumstances, outward aggression seems to garner negative results, more often than not.  And in activities that require timing and tempo, sometimes the best way to aggressively serve my strategy is to sit back and wait, for if I rush my actions, I will lose my opportunity.

I have a ton of faults.  Left to my own devices, I become angry and vengeful, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  But when I freely admit my problems, I find I’m able to channel them, as well as put controls in place where they become minor irritations, non-issues, or—best case scenario—tools that help me out.  The better I get at this, the more I’m able to fool people into thinking I’m a “good guy.”

I guess it doesn’t matter, because in the end, for all intents and purposes, I have found ways to act and behave exactly like one.

A wave of adversity—properly framed and strategically utilized—can be used to lift someone out of the trough of meaningless and incapability.

Being able to reliably produce positive outcomes is powerful.

Being able to expand the scope/reach of those outcomes is REALLY powerful.

Being able to articulate the reasoning/methodology (the why and how) of those outcomes is INCREDIBLY powerful.

And if you can do all three at once?  That’s damn near a superpower.