I appreciate the invitation here to distinguish what we encounter from the stories we quickly build around it. I have been thinking about this distinction quite a bit lately.
I am less certain that we can ever encounter things entirely “as they are,” free from interpretation. Even our first impressions are shaped by memory, language, expectation, and experience. But perhaps the practice is not to eliminate interpretation. Perhaps it is to become aware of it, loosen our attachment to it, and remain available to seeing something we may have missed.
That feels less like achieving a perfectly objective view of reality and more like learning not to confuse my interpretation of reality with reality itself.
Thank you. This gave me another way to think about a question I have been carrying.
Really like this one, and "subtract the adjectives" is a usable technique. "He rudely ignored my message" versus "I sent him a message yesterday, he hasn't replied" is exactly right, strip the non-evident story off the evident fact.
One small quibble I have here would be the opening technique. Marcus calling wine "fermented grape juice" and purple robes "sheep's wool dyed in shellfish gore" isn't quite the same as subtracting adjectives. That's swapping one description for another, not stripping away to neutral. "Fermented grape juice" is just as loaded a claim as "fine wine," it's asserting the deflated version is the true one underneath, rather than noticing both are just appearances and declining to say which is more real. Subtracting the adjectives gets you to "I sent him a message, he hasn't replied." The wine example gets you to a different adjective, not none at all.
Doesn't take anything away from the actual technique, if anything I think it's the better version of what Marcus was reaching for with the wine line.
I have a different method of pulling myself together in face of such enchantment, excitement, and all that jazz. I learned and trained my mind back when I used to micro-manage my thought processes as I was dealing with stress syndrome.
I understood and remained mindful of my triggers and engaged in a metacognitive analysis. I would tell my mind (as if thinking through another spare or ancillary brain matter) that this excitement or on-the-edge situation is caused by the release of stress hormones, and now these hormones are causing such dreadful intrusive thoughts. So I should let these hormones dissipate.
Over time, I became so masterful and nonchalant that at times I would on purpose let my guard down so that I remain emotionally active, yet mindful of it.
STOIC
Hello, send me an e-mail with the word STOIC at: admin@thestoicmanual.com
Gold, absolute gold
I appreciate the invitation here to distinguish what we encounter from the stories we quickly build around it. I have been thinking about this distinction quite a bit lately.
I am less certain that we can ever encounter things entirely “as they are,” free from interpretation. Even our first impressions are shaped by memory, language, expectation, and experience. But perhaps the practice is not to eliminate interpretation. Perhaps it is to become aware of it, loosen our attachment to it, and remain available to seeing something we may have missed.
That feels less like achieving a perfectly objective view of reality and more like learning not to confuse my interpretation of reality with reality itself.
Thank you. This gave me another way to think about a question I have been carrying.
Really like this one, and "subtract the adjectives" is a usable technique. "He rudely ignored my message" versus "I sent him a message yesterday, he hasn't replied" is exactly right, strip the non-evident story off the evident fact.
One small quibble I have here would be the opening technique. Marcus calling wine "fermented grape juice" and purple robes "sheep's wool dyed in shellfish gore" isn't quite the same as subtracting adjectives. That's swapping one description for another, not stripping away to neutral. "Fermented grape juice" is just as loaded a claim as "fine wine," it's asserting the deflated version is the true one underneath, rather than noticing both are just appearances and declining to say which is more real. Subtracting the adjectives gets you to "I sent him a message, he hasn't replied." The wine example gets you to a different adjective, not none at all.
Doesn't take anything away from the actual technique, if anything I think it's the better version of what Marcus was reaching for with the wine line.
I have a different method of pulling myself together in face of such enchantment, excitement, and all that jazz. I learned and trained my mind back when I used to micro-manage my thought processes as I was dealing with stress syndrome.
I understood and remained mindful of my triggers and engaged in a metacognitive analysis. I would tell my mind (as if thinking through another spare or ancillary brain matter) that this excitement or on-the-edge situation is caused by the release of stress hormones, and now these hormones are causing such dreadful intrusive thoughts. So I should let these hormones dissipate.
Over time, I became so masterful and nonchalant that at times I would on purpose let my guard down so that I remain emotionally active, yet mindful of it.
Stoic