Obviously, acknowledging there is something that we need to learn is not as easy
as it sounds. In fact, acknowledging that we don't know something or that what
we do know isn't very useful or effective presents us with one of the major
paradoxes of life. The dilemma we are confronted with is how can we know
what we don't know when what we have already learned will block our
perception of what we haven't learned yet. For example, once we learn that
trading is easy (the first few quick winning trades will establish that belief), it
will block our perception of information to the contrary, that trading is probably
one of the hardest endeavors one could choose to undertake. Each of these
beliefs—that trading is easy or trading is hard—would result in the perception of
completely different choices as being available from the environment, resulting
in very different outcomes based on the choices perceived and acted on.
We don't question the usefulness or effectiveness of something we have already learned, simply because what each of us has learned we experienced in some way. That is, we won't question what we have experienced just because we experienced it, meaning the reality of the experience is based in our five senses: what is inside of us we either, felt, saw, heard, smelled, or tasted. That's real enough. Once an experience becomes a component part of our mental environment in the form of a memory, belief, or association, it becomes a part of what is commonly believed to be our identity and beyond question.
However, we are open to learn practically anything the environment has to offer, if we haven't been previously exposed in some way. We will soak up first-time information like a sponge, regardless of what it is. However, once it is inside of us, we will either defend it or defend against it (hide from information in the environment that we don't want to acknowledge as a part of our mental environment), instead of making ourselves available to learn more of what the environment has to offer in the way of insight about itself or ourself as the case may be.
To defend against the intrusion of information requires energy. This investment in energy is commonly referred to as stress. The simplest definition that I can think of for stress is that it is what we feel when we are actively blocking information from the environment. In physical terms stress is really no different from walking against the wind. Symbolically, the wind would represent various categories of environmental information we don't want to confront; our bodies walking against the wind would represent what we have already learned—what is already inside of us that blocks what is outside of us. The two forces clash and we feel stress.
One of the biggest ironies of life is that everyone wants to be right..
Just because something gets input into our mental environment doesn't mean that it's of any real value in helping us to fulfill ourselves.
All of us will just naturally grow into a new set of limitations as we expand our awarenesses by learning, which in turn releases us from things we used to believe. However, if the quality of the energy in many of our beliefs is negatively charged, then our fear will act as an obstacle to self-expression, limiting what we can perceive from the environment as possibilities.
An even bigger irony is that the more we acknowledge the possibility that our version of the way things exist isn't as effective of a resource as it could be, the more we make ourselves available to learn from the environment. By expanding our personal dot to include more of what is outside of us inside of us, the more it increases our level of correspondence with the outside, leaving less and less of what is out there that we don't know about, thereby increasing our ability to be right.
The more we allow ourselves to learn, the better able we are at making assessments about the probabilities that exist in some future moment.
The more we believe we know, the more we make the environment prove to us that what we know isn't particularly useful or effective. The problem is that proof could be right in front of our noses and we wouldn't have the mental framework to recognize it, unless we willingly allowed ourselves to confront it and consider it. Otherwise, if we all knew so much, we wouldn't ever experience emotional pain, because it is a perfect indication that we don't know how to interact with the environment to our satisfaction— because if we did, we would.
What we haven't learned yet is outside of each one of us waiting to become a part of our personal dot. What we don't know represents all the information that could result in choices that have much more satisfying outcomes. However, since we can't know what we haven't learned yet and what we do know blocks the perception of other alternatives that exist for satisfaction, we easily get caught in these terribly unsatisfying life cycles, believing that is all the world has to offer, when our predicament is merely the result of our inability to adapt ourselves.
When we do allow ourselves to adapt, we learn that there are always more choices available than our beliefs will allow us to perceive. What I mean by adapt is to identify and actively change something that is already inside of us so there is a higher degree of correspondence between the inside and outside.
Anything we experience will become a functioning part of our identity. When I say "functioning," I mean that once something is inside of us, regardless of what it is, it then has the potential to act as a force on our behavior. All these functioning parts that we call memories of experiences, beliefs, and associations, in turn then act as an internal force to shape our perception of the environment we experience out of what is available to experience.
What would be the ultimate proof that we need to finally make us acknowledge that there is something we need to learn? Pain! We will acknowledge the need to learn when we are experiencing the emotional pain of a great disappointment or stress and anxiety because we don't know what to do next, and we are finding it increasingly difficult to shift the responsibility for what we are ending up with.
The problem is that if learning something new means that we have to change what we have already learned, we instinctively seem to refuse to do it, regardless of how inappropriate what we have learned may be relative to what we would need to know to experience satisfaction. Once we have learned something, it will act as a force to block other information that would result in the perception of other choices. Even children will resist the acceptance of information that is contrary to what they have already learned, regardless of how dysfunctional their knowledge may be.
All learning is synonymous with change, whether we are changing something we already know or learning something completely new. If we refuse to change (adapt) the inside—adding to what we know to create more distinctions and change our perspective—then we are not learning what we need to know to experience something different in the outer environment. If there is no change on the inside, there will be no perceived change in the outside, thereby locking us into recurring cycles of pain and dissatisfaction. What's more, we will continue to suffer until the pain becomes so great that we are left with no choice other than to reassess how we go about managing our lives, that is, reassessing the usefulness of our beliefs.
We don't question the usefulness or effectiveness of something we have already learned, simply because what each of us has learned we experienced in some way. That is, we won't question what we have experienced just because we experienced it, meaning the reality of the experience is based in our five senses: what is inside of us we either, felt, saw, heard, smelled, or tasted. That's real enough. Once an experience becomes a component part of our mental environment in the form of a memory, belief, or association, it becomes a part of what is commonly believed to be our identity and beyond question.
However, we are open to learn practically anything the environment has to offer, if we haven't been previously exposed in some way. We will soak up first-time information like a sponge, regardless of what it is. However, once it is inside of us, we will either defend it or defend against it (hide from information in the environment that we don't want to acknowledge as a part of our mental environment), instead of making ourselves available to learn more of what the environment has to offer in the way of insight about itself or ourself as the case may be.
To defend against the intrusion of information requires energy. This investment in energy is commonly referred to as stress. The simplest definition that I can think of for stress is that it is what we feel when we are actively blocking information from the environment. In physical terms stress is really no different from walking against the wind. Symbolically, the wind would represent various categories of environmental information we don't want to confront; our bodies walking against the wind would represent what we have already learned—what is already inside of us that blocks what is outside of us. The two forces clash and we feel stress.
One of the biggest ironies of life is that everyone wants to be right..
Just because something gets input into our mental environment doesn't mean that it's of any real value in helping us to fulfill ourselves.
All of us will just naturally grow into a new set of limitations as we expand our awarenesses by learning, which in turn releases us from things we used to believe. However, if the quality of the energy in many of our beliefs is negatively charged, then our fear will act as an obstacle to self-expression, limiting what we can perceive from the environment as possibilities.
An even bigger irony is that the more we acknowledge the possibility that our version of the way things exist isn't as effective of a resource as it could be, the more we make ourselves available to learn from the environment. By expanding our personal dot to include more of what is outside of us inside of us, the more it increases our level of correspondence with the outside, leaving less and less of what is out there that we don't know about, thereby increasing our ability to be right.
The more we allow ourselves to learn, the better able we are at making assessments about the probabilities that exist in some future moment.
The more we believe we know, the more we make the environment prove to us that what we know isn't particularly useful or effective. The problem is that proof could be right in front of our noses and we wouldn't have the mental framework to recognize it, unless we willingly allowed ourselves to confront it and consider it. Otherwise, if we all knew so much, we wouldn't ever experience emotional pain, because it is a perfect indication that we don't know how to interact with the environment to our satisfaction— because if we did, we would.
What we haven't learned yet is outside of each one of us waiting to become a part of our personal dot. What we don't know represents all the information that could result in choices that have much more satisfying outcomes. However, since we can't know what we haven't learned yet and what we do know blocks the perception of other alternatives that exist for satisfaction, we easily get caught in these terribly unsatisfying life cycles, believing that is all the world has to offer, when our predicament is merely the result of our inability to adapt ourselves.
When we do allow ourselves to adapt, we learn that there are always more choices available than our beliefs will allow us to perceive. What I mean by adapt is to identify and actively change something that is already inside of us so there is a higher degree of correspondence between the inside and outside.
Anything we experience will become a functioning part of our identity. When I say "functioning," I mean that once something is inside of us, regardless of what it is, it then has the potential to act as a force on our behavior. All these functioning parts that we call memories of experiences, beliefs, and associations, in turn then act as an internal force to shape our perception of the environment we experience out of what is available to experience.
What would be the ultimate proof that we need to finally make us acknowledge that there is something we need to learn? Pain! We will acknowledge the need to learn when we are experiencing the emotional pain of a great disappointment or stress and anxiety because we don't know what to do next, and we are finding it increasingly difficult to shift the responsibility for what we are ending up with.
The problem is that if learning something new means that we have to change what we have already learned, we instinctively seem to refuse to do it, regardless of how inappropriate what we have learned may be relative to what we would need to know to experience satisfaction. Once we have learned something, it will act as a force to block other information that would result in the perception of other choices. Even children will resist the acceptance of information that is contrary to what they have already learned, regardless of how dysfunctional their knowledge may be.
All learning is synonymous with change, whether we are changing something we already know or learning something completely new. If we refuse to change (adapt) the inside—adding to what we know to create more distinctions and change our perspective—then we are not learning what we need to know to experience something different in the outer environment. If there is no change on the inside, there will be no perceived change in the outside, thereby locking us into recurring cycles of pain and dissatisfaction. What's more, we will continue to suffer until the pain becomes so great that we are left with no choice other than to reassess how we go about managing our lives, that is, reassessing the usefulness of our beliefs.
Comments
Post a Comment