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:

My Intention to Resolve an Impossible Paradox

Intention

Within my bubble of limited awareness, underlying every intention is a perception of deficit from wholeness. With awareness beyond the bubble, I realize there is no deficit. It’s a perceptual paradox – a side effect of limited awareness. Meanwhile, back in the bubble, every intention is a search for resolution to this paradox. Yet, in searching do I not affirm and confirm the very paradox I seek to resolve?

From intention comes the need paradox – an acknowledgment of a deficit that, though never lost, requires restoration to wholeness. I then act to defend that truth by convincing myself I was right to perceive the need. This belief in need supports a Self that is dependent as separate from wholeness. Thus, motivating me to seek evidence to defend that truth – proof, such as stories borne of experience.

My memories and logic are based on those stories and so become my philosophy of life. The power of this mythical life turns my experiences into a cohesive reality that satisfies my need for defense.

Choice represents my philosophy by comparing what I experience with what I believe. I compare to compete to serve this paradox of perception. Choice works as a competitive form of reasoning. This unshakeable belief system forms one continuous philosophical story, a hero’s journey. As the hero, I triumph over challenges from the world outside the bubble. Thus, fulfilling needs through the use of defense.

Resolution

I satisfy my perception of deficit with an appearance of things and persons I feel complete this segment of my story… again and again.

In this way, a philosophical format connects intentions together to create a cohesive string of perceptual needs. Stories develop my intentions into an organized framework, making choices seem logical and justifiable.

My Paradox Resolution Process so far:

  1. Perception – a sense of separation creates a paradox
  2. Intention – a sense of need to resolve the paradox affirms and confirms the paradox
  3. Philosophy – the story line that sets the framework for choices that validate the paradox
  4. Choicedetermines the strategy for implementing a defense of my intention according to my philosophy

This is my resolution process from perception of deficit to choice. Thus, I intend for my perception of separateness from wholeness to serve the paradox it creates – whether or not I’m aware of it.

Please follow and like us:

Attention and the Wholeness Prize

Attention is the notice I give to someone or something that sets them apart for preferential consideration. In bubble awareness, I attend to what I’m most interested in, which is attaining wholeness. The attention I give to that quest requires intention, the power of will that drives me towards that goal of wholeness, which is to be right.

My intentions require judgements to polarize my perspective of reality. I judge everything and everyone, including self, based on my survival. In the bubble, my survival depends on the attention I give to the support and defense of my intention to be right.

I use judgements to divide and separate my experiences into two main categories – good and bad. Good means surviving well in my rightness, while bad means to survive poorly and/or die being wrong. My survival requires a paradoxical approach – I attend to what I want and what I don’t want – focusing on what I want and don’t have.

Because I believe myself unwhole, I must forever seek wholeness. In a world of competition, wholeness is a prize that must be earned. To win the prize, I must be worthy of it. My attention to and defense of my judgement of what is worthy of wholeness is my payment to that end. When I feel I am whole, I will feel I have earned it. Trouble is, because I’m forever seeking wholeness, I’ll never realize wholeness.

Based on this premise of a less-than-whole self who can compete and win the ultimate prize, no intention to achieve, or strategy to win, or attention to worthiness will ever result in wholeness. Why? Because I was never unwhole to begin with. There was no prize to win because I already AM whole as I AM.

What Is My Thinking Process?

Every premise drives an intention that drives a strategy to achieve the intention. It all goes back to who I perceive I am – the central premise. That perceived identity is the foundational premise underlying the story generated by the strategy, which defends the identity – the central premise.

First and foremost, I seek to prove the central premise – that I’m right! To that end, I:

  • give value and worth to my premise
  • set an intention to prove the premise
  • create a strategy that does that
  • favor attention to what proves me right
  • defend what proves my premise right
  • defend against threats to that premise
  • perceive all evidence to favor the premise

Did you notice that in the list above there isn’t a single question? That’s because the game of winning isn’t about doubt. It’s about certitude – proving rightness.

In the next article, let’s investigate what we might think instead.

Please follow and like us: