It’s a Question of Paradoxical Policies on Automatic

In his entertaining skits, David Alan Grier’s character, Calhoun Tubbs, has a song ready for every occasion. No matter how inappropriate the situation or his application of song he wrote. He thus presents a question of paradoxical policies on automatic.

“Wrote a song about it! Like to hear it? Here it go!”
(David Alan Grier as Calhoun Tubbs, In Living Color)

Most of my personal policies are so automatic and happen so quickly, I fail to notice them in action. That is, until I question one by paying it some attention. For example, I DIDN’T NOTICE that while sitting at my desk typing this, my breathing was shallow. That is, until I NOTICED! Then, suddenly, my breathing changed. BY NOTICING, I turned an unconscious automatic conditional policy into a conscious strategy that resulted in a different outcome.

A Question of Awareness

In every conditional policy, there is an inherent question:
“Is my perception of the situation true?” Or, more succinctly, “Is it true?”

In order to NOTICE, I must QUESTION an assumption – that I perceive the situation correctly. In order to QUESTION its accuracy, I must NOTICE my perception of a situation or condition. Thus, it would seem, awareness and questioning go hand-in-hand.

My conscious awareness tends to focus mostly on outcomes. That is, did my process result as I intended? The answer to that question supplies the trigger for the next policy –

  • Yes, it worked! So, initiate a policy to –
    • Strengthen the policy through favor
    • Use the policy again
    • Increase trust in the policy
  • No, it didn’t work. So, initiate one or more of the following policies –
    • Scapegoat!
    • Blame!
    • Escape detection!
    • Deflection!
    • Confusion!
    • Reevaluate my procedures (how I carried out the policy).

Note the avoidance of a policy to –

  • Question my policy.
  • Reevaluate my philosophy.
  • Question my beliefs.
  • Take accountability.

Four Questions!

Something happened and I reacted. I might ask 4 questions that may lead me to some awareness. I might ask myself as soon as I regain my thinking capacity, “What happened and what did I do?” Then –

  1. WHAT ACTUALLY happened? (Was the situation true as I perceived it? Yes or No? Assumption: No!)
  2. Assuming my incorrect perception, how would I react/behave given what ACTUALLY happened? “Apply a new policy!”
  3. Why would I do something different given what ACTUALLY happened?
  4. Who is perceiving what ACTUALLY happened?

The same set of questions could be used to deescalate a threatening situation –

  1. WHAT is ACTUALLY happening? (What is the current situation?)
  2. HOW does the ACTUAL situation appear to me? (Inventory your sensory feedback – not your emotions!)
    1. What do I see – right now?
    2. What do I hear – right now?
    3. Where do I feel it in my body – right now?
    4. What do I taste – right now?
    5. What do I smell – right now?
  3. WHY would I assign [a negative emotion like fear] to this ACTUAL situation? (new answer: “I wouldn’t!”)
  4. WHO is in charge of my perception of this situation? (the answer to that is – “I’m the one who’s perceiving this.”)
  5. WHO’S the policy maker?” (the answer is – “me.”)
Please follow and like us:

I Have a Policy for That!

The first line of defense for choosing separation is to make that choice a belief. Policy manages how beliefs manifest, sustaining a bias-based defense system – my First-Second Degree of awareness bubble.

My Manifestation Process

  1. Perception of Separation
  2. Intention
  3. Philosophy
  4. Choice
    1. Policy
    2. Procedure/Action
  5. Outcome/Feedback

Beliefs are substantiated by philosophies, stories that obscure hidden defenses. A fertile imagination fashions my most cherished and well-used philosophies into stories that defend them. I experience these stories as comparative hierarchies of defense, thus satisfying my need for rightness.

Policies manage my perceived threats and benefits from least to greatest importance to survival. By default, I arrange this hierarchy in order of defense value. Those philosophies that conceptualize the greatest defense value rule over the others.

Every philosophy carries defense values expressed through choices, policies and procedures. When my policies and procedures project a me vs not me choice onto a comparative reality, I must defend it.

It’s Conditional!

My personal policies define my adopted or proposed courses or principles of action. Each operates as a contract with myself. Policies defend my beliefs with procedures, the actions that turn my beliefs into experience.

The result of this process is a life of competition – me working against myself. My experiences are fractals within fractals of defense. Each fractal represents a paradox of perception that defends choices, beliefs, philosophies, policies, and procedures in an outcome.

A policy is a conceptualization of a belief in the form of a conditional statement, “if/when a condition is true, then do the following action…”

  1. If/When I think X condition is true, then I will probably do Y
  2. If/When I’m convinced X condition is true, then I will absolutely do Y

This morphs into a BE-DO logic level reasoning paradox policy:

  1. X condition must BE true because I/you DID Y
  2. I/you DID Y because X condition was true

For example, “You must BE in love with me because I DO nice things for you.” And, “I must BE dumb because I DID poorly on the test!”

I experience a conflict in a relationship when I APPLY a morphed conditional policy to resolve it. That is, BECAUSE I perceive this conflict, I feel I must DO something about it. For example, because I am afraid, I must freeze up!

What can I do to correct my paradox of perception? Well, now that I’ve NOTICED the condition, I might question it and consider making a change – to policies first, then maybe to philosophies – and, perhaps ultimately, to my beliefs!

Please follow and like us:

In Defense of the Choice Paradox

My manifestation process presents my conscious awareness with what, how, and why I choose and defend as I do – based on who I believe I am. From the form to the actions I take, choices and reasons defend and so present me with a convincing model that validates who I think I am – separate, dependent, and defensive. Thus, I present myself with a perceptual paradox of being – dividing to create unity and unifying to create division. A fantasy of self.

I hide these paradoxical intentions in order to safeguard the self-image fantasy. To conceal my real intention, I work to control the appearance of its outcome. I start this process by managing the appearance of my choices.

In my self-referential fantasy, I can mask an intention by making it appear as though a choice determines its outcome. Thus, I can deduce that an outcome is the result of the choice from which it derived. Simple, yet paradoxical logic.

Unmasked, I see that intention determines the direction and scope of the choices that act in defense of my intention. Although a choice appears as the causal element of an outcome, it may instead be one aspect in the process of manifesting and so defending an intention.

Thus, I manipulate my perception of an outcome to give the appearance of rightness to my choice in defense of my intention. The political process of self! And, yeah, what do you know – it’s a paradox!

My process utilizes choice as a means for creating paradox in the form of defense. Because my choices are all about comparing, I can’t compare without defending those comparisons. Any reasons I have for and against this or that way of being are intended to compete. For example, “That is why I chose this and this is why I didn’t choose that.”

In Defense of the Choice Paradox

When I make a choice, it is between two or more defenses that appear as options. For example –

  • Which option makes me feel more right?!
  • Which option makes me feel less challenged?

I then use my manifestation process to manage outcomes of my choice to make it appear I’m right. Meanwhile I defend against challenges to my choice by applying paradoxical reasoning –

  • When I perceive my choices go unchallenged, I assume I’m right. This assumed validation of rightness serves to confirm that I’m right. A self-referential paradox!
  • When I perceive challenges to my choices, I feel my rightness is being challenged, which implies I’m wrong. That can’t happen! I need a process that automatically defends my choice and makes me right despite evidence to the contrary. A self-confirmational paradox!

That process manipulates the way I see the evidence of my actions. Thus masking my intention for that action. This makes my thoughts and actions seem different than my intention, justifying the outcome as reasonable. The lack of self-challenge in this process makes me feel I’m right.

That rightness IS the intention of CHOICE, the defense of intention. The choice paradox.

Please follow and like us:

How My Belief in Law Affects My Philosophy

My limited awareness bubble is based on laws and my need to follow them. To follow any law, I must first justify it as a law. My justifications create a paradoxical reality where reason considers philosophy as evidence in a cause-and-effect story. This convinces me that laws are real.

Therefore, I believe and obey external laws and their appearances of cause and effect in nature. In a similar way, I obey my internal laws, which manifest cause and effect of my philosophies in thoughts and emotions.

My internal laws seem as inescapable in their power over me as the undeniable power of external laws. My acceptance of fear as an internal law gives it as much power as the external law of gravity.

  1. External laws teach me about relationships within the natural world. This through a physical process. This insures that cause and effect are carried out in compliance with the laws that that process represents. Thus, I perceive interactions between forces of nature, like energy, matter, their functions and forms.
  2. Internal laws teach me about my *paradoxical relationship with self in its own world. This through a nonphysical process that insures that cause and effect are carried out in compliance with the laws that that process represents. Thus, I experience interactions of cause and effect in how I interpret my thoughts and emotions, choices and perceptions.

*A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion. Wikipedia

My Paradoxical Philosophy of Fear

My philosophies and the stories that define them are paradoxical. A philosophy keeps me accountable to laws through obedience. I feel I can’t control laws, yet, I can justify them using a paradoxical philosophy.

The stories I create to represent my philosophies string together the paradoxical effects of my thinking process. One law can have many philosophical cause-and-effect stories that defend it. For example, fear as a law dictates that my day-to-day story-lines should follow a philosophy that supports a fear of: lack, death, suffering, pain, being alone, etc.

Paradoxical Fear Equations

My logic equations illustrate how I process a paradoxical philosophy in defense of law. My equations protect and support my understanding and trust in law. This reminds me of an incident when I believed in and obeyed fear as a law while shopping. I backed that law with a philosophy of lack that supported it. At checkout, I realized I lacked the money for my purchases. That’s when a fear of lack kicked-in – “See, you were right to be afraid!” said my inner storyteller. My philosophy hijacked the law of cause and effect to justify my fear.

This fear-based illogical logic equation looks like:
Lack + Fear = Fear of Lack

A fear of lack is a fear of not having so, what I feared at checkout wasn’t about money. It was about not knowing what was going to happen next. That kind of not knowing can feel like an eternity of psychological torture. At any moment, I can find myself wanting to escape from a future I fear might happen. That experience confirmed that I am always subject to my beliefs through my process. I realized then that I was living with paradoxical equations that differ from my present intentions.

This fear-based illogical logic equation looks like:
Not knowing + Fear = Fear of not knowing

Ultimately, my thinking supports a process in which paradoxical philosophies defend paradoxical laws.

Please follow and like us:

Beating Fear with Math (pt 2)

When I feel afraid, I tend to narrow my attention onto JUST the object of my fear and the outcomes I fear will happen if I don’t apply appropriate action – maybe very soon. “If I don’t pay this fine, I’ll go to jail! I can’t have that!” I’ve narrowed my all-outcomes set to a tiny selection set of acceptable outcomes – what I “can have.”

Fear narrows the odds of an acceptable outcome – like buying only one lottery ticket. It also significantly increases the odds that I’ll experience an outcome I don’t like – like realizing you’d just bought a losing lottery ticket.

When I expand my selection set of acceptable outcomes, I increase the odds of experiencing an acceptable outcome and decrease the odds of an outcome I can’t live with.

How does one expand their selection set of acceptable outcomes?

By allowing less-than-optimum outcomes into your selection set, you significantly increase your odds of winning a lesser, though still acceptable outcome. Expanding your allowed-into-the-selection-set criteria, you build a larger selection set, which lessens the impact of a less than optimum outcome. By expanding your allowed set to the size of the all-outcomes set increases the odds of winning to 100% – and lessens the odds of losing to zero.

“Well, that would mean accepting any outcome as acceptable!” – Why, yes, I think it would. That is the essence of trust – expanding the selection set to the size of the all-outcomes set. All for one and one for all.

“Wait a minute! If I accept any outcome, won’t I sometimes get outcomes I don’t like?” Probably. At first. Until you realize that you can expand your “what I like” selection set to the size of the all-outcomes set – by allowing your “don’t likes” into your “likes” selection set.

“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
― Abraham Lincoln

A simple imagery exercise can get you started. Relax and clear your mind. Imagine a ball the size of your fist. Fill the ball with light of any color you like. Put the ball in a box. Now put another ball into the box. Then another ball and another. Until the box is full. Let it spill out as you continue to add balls to the box. Soon the box disappears as the entire room fills with light in the shape of colored balls. Fill the house… the neighborhood… the town… the whole earth… the universe. Expand… expand… expand… light everywhere.

Your selection set of one ball has expanded to include all balls everywhere – the all-outcome set.

Please follow and like us: