It seems that many people love learning about everything but their own faults and where they stem from.  This makes sense to me, because I believe that if you learn deeply enough about yourself, you may be forced to acknowledge that the romantic labels you’ve affixed to yourself are falsities, and no one likes to change or do away with those labels, as they are the very stuff which identity springs from.  But really, are there “true” labels that reside at the core of our beings?  

Maybe there’s nothing there at all, or whatever is there defies the very concept of labels.  Maybe it’s a concept that’s simultaneously thrilling and terrifying.  😉

Most of us are gifted in some way.  Everyone I know is [smart/talented/funny/hardworking/disciplined/genius/creative/powerful/wise/profound/beautiful/eloquent/take your pick].  My question is:  when it comes time to do a task, who’s actually going to DO it? (And from brutally unpleasant firsthand experience, I can attest that demonstrating superior effort comes in a distant, DISTANT second to actually accomplishing the damn task.)  And that’s not even the kicker.  The kicker is:  who can you trust to do it over and over again?  All those boring, unsexy basics like discipline, creative problem-solving, positive aggression, attention to detail, critical thinking, tracking the evidence and applying it to the next thing…

Yep, those basics never stop being important.

Given our immediate constraints, it only takes the tiniest bit of critical thinking to realize that we can’t “do anything you set your mind to.”  Since that nullifies the romantic notion that simple brute effort is all it takes to achieve a desired result, what methodology is left to us?  

Assess and experiment, assess and experiment.  The ability to put forth great effort (definitely essential; i’m a giant believer in discipline) is merely a prerequisite to actual functionality.

If we accept the age-old premise that we are fragments of a divine entity that purposefully forgot its omnipotence so it could experience the joy of rediscovering itself, and that every duality we see is a game we’ve created to experience the joy of struggle/victory/another lesson learned, then there is no such thing as spirituality; we are all “spiritual” by default (as we are all divine by default).  Either everything is spiritual or nothing is, and the game of “the spiritual path” is one we festoon with rituals and rites, simply to rediscover that we’re all already divine.  I understand that if one enjoys the idea of a “spiritual path,” then it may be fun to be meticulous about it, it may even be fun to approach it with grave earnestness…but why the hell would you ever let it stress you out?  Why would you be righteous about it?  I guess if, as a fragment of the divine, you thought it would add to the fun, then those stances make sense.  

But from my perspective, those stances seems less like fun and more like a chore.

At a certain point, I believe the focus shifts from seeking [pats on the back and vigorous nods from likeminded folk] to tapping universal strains of truth—ones that function in hostile environments, and are also able to affect those who possess differing viewpoints.  THAT’S when ideas are able to weather unpredictability, as well as unrestrained opposition.  

In my opinion, that’s when ideas gain a life of their own.

There’s a gigantic difference between “Do what works” and “Do what feels good.”  The first approach is functionality based; it requires constant, brutally honest assessment (so I can check my stances, make sure they’re still relevant, and also so I can ensure that I’m behaving ethically).  The second approach—while able to deliver results—can easily be hijacked by confirmation bias and desire to indulge, incentivizing me to justify lack of results with outdated philosophies:  modalities that appeal to my emotions but completely neglect function. 

But hey, I’m free to do whatever I want, right?  😉  (personally, although the first approach may not always “feel good,” I find it more fulfilling in the long term)

I believe the relative idea of “success” is defined by how fast I can use critical thinking and creative daring (and of course The Basics like discipline, effort, and attention to detail) to outpace the forces of entropy.

It seems that many think that “doing your best” is defined by massive exertion, but I disagree; from what I’ve seen, effort is simply a prerequisite.  Combine all-out effort with the practice of constantly questioning your methods and positions (to see if you’re doing things as fast and efficiently as possible within ethical parameters), and the intellectual courage to contemplate and experiment with new approaches…I think THAT’S close to the definition of “doing your best.”

I think The Ones Who Know would tell us to have fun with Not Knowing (or the unceasing quest to discover the undiscoverable; you can phrase it however you wish), for if we are indeed components of some all-powerful thing, then it only makes sense that the all-powerful thing limited itself to individual components so that it could enjoy experiencing itself from a limited perspective.  

Those who reflexively condemn a perspective just because it rubs them the wrong way are doing themselves a disservice.  They’re closing themselves off from the indescribable freedom of being able to shift their perception between ALL perspectives, as well as understanding how nurture/nature crafted their “enemy” into that very thing that’s so fun to hate.  From a scientific, cosmically oriented perspective—never mind a spiritual one—it quickly becomes obvious that it’s ridiculous to waste time hating/condemning if it doesn’t provide fuel for effort, or serve a greater strategy.  (And yeah, if you want to be a writer, it really helps to not hate your characters—even your villains—so that you can slip into their minds and see how “nasty” behaviors make perfect sense to them).