On matches, loops and loop(w)holes

Upon further reflection I would consider parts of my last posting slightly inconsistent. I suppose the “quintessence” is the emergence of a cooperative system for mankind – a thought that comes to me quite often in recent times.

In the last few days I have had some interesting and challenging conversations with Thomas. He told me a few things about NLP Trinergy and we spun a few other ideas as well. For a moment I felt like understanding the “cycle of rebirth” and kamma for the first time. I also wondered whether there could be a structural match between the Buddhist triad “greed, aversion, delusion” and some Trinergy triads (e.g. mentor/saviour, muse/victim, doer/culprit).

Discovering such matches can be great fun. It’s a bit like highly abstract pattern recognition. I probably like it too much, but who knows? Someday it might be good for something.

Today I re-discovered (I tend to “forget” a lot of things!) the significant role of internal and external justifications. This could be one of the key inhibition factors for my progress, as I can easily observe how they create and nurture loops and “vicious circles”. Yes, there is a loophole for this loop! It encompasses mindfulness and constant practice.

I also realized – thanks to the conversations with Thomas – how the “Systematic Approach” (a structured collection of mind-maps which I have created some weeks ago) is far more problem-oriented, rather than solution-oriented, than what I thought. Indeed it was supposed to facilitate a transition from the former to the latter orientation: status quo – disadvantages – analysis – solution ideas – experiences – progress – advantages – destination. But guess what, I have mainly been focusing on the former (problem/past-oriented) part. I still think it could be useful to some extent, but only when properly used! D’oh. :-)

These are interesting days. And still there is so much to learn. Oh, by the way, I learned my first Polish words today! :-)

1 thought on “On matches, loops and loop(w)holes

  1. Quote: Discovering such matches can be great fun. It’s a bit like highly abstract pattern recognition.

    I also find it endlessly fascinating to translate different concepts between different world-views. Of course, I have to be careful that I’m seeing actual similarities, and not just imagining them.

    I’ve been studying this matter in some detail lately because it bears upon a skill that I call “translecture” — “reading through” (and past, and beyond) the words to get at whatever truth appears behind what is being said.

    I’ve found it difficult to find people who “speak the same language” that I do, and are “on the same wavelength” on most topics. So I have little choice but to translate (“decompile”?) what people say.

    It’s a lossy process. After you strip away the doctrine, dogma, conditioning etc. from what somebody says, you’re usually left with little beyond this simple message: “Give me what I need without changing me.”

    Quote: I also realized … the “Systematic Approach” … is far more problem-oriented, rather than solution-oriented …

    I’ve created several elegant systems of analysis, only to discover that the analysis itself has become the problem, as it separates me from the reality I’m trying to … grasp. Cling to?

    I view these “elegant” models of mine as mere tools, not to be taken too seriously. Somebody might represent something as a triangle, but I’ll see the same thing in terms of, say, “finite element stress analysis”. Same concept, different approach — and (typically) an inability to communicate with those who use different models. Which leads to arguments, wars and fun stuff like that.

    Small wonder people like to continue to believe what they already believe. It SEEMS so much easier when you’re not aware of the cost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *