Why is there the assumption and unwritten rule that you can't talk about politics or religion at work or large family gatherings, etc.? We only talk about these things when we're comfortable with the company we're with. Usually it's in a smaller, intimate setting. No fear of ridicule, belittling, or potential opposition. It's that fear that drives that behavior. Contrarily I can bring up politics and religion in those settings with a love-based intention. I can ask the same question with those 2 different intentions and intonations. If a person first hears the tone or the how I'm saying something before the what or why I'm saying it, then that's what I should focus on first. And really that's what we should be teaching to children. Not focusing on what they know first, which translates to what they think and say. We should focus first on how a child says something.
We focus so much on knowledge acquisition, intelligence from a 'knowing' perspective. Sure that's important. But what's higher priority is how that knowledge is applied. Two people can read Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf and interpret it in 2 vastly different ways. How we deliver the processing of the information is important.
So then, how do you show someone how to effectively communicate? Well I guess there's lots and lots of content, courses, communities around that. The techniques and tools taught in those sources are valuable but again it's about implementing them with the right intention. So what's more important than the content of the course is the intention of the student at the onset of that course. That's why VijayaSai would ask us to write the intenion and what we want to get from the course. Then, everything that's learned throughout that course is within the context of that intention. That's definitely true with me. As many of the notes I made when listening to education podcasts was about how I can then apply that to my school idea. There has to be an intention for everything we do then.
So bringing it back to the original question, the intention and belief that people have when someone broaches these topics is they may feel under attack. Fear of not fitting in. Fear or rejection. So then you have to have an intention of acceptance when approaching these subjects with people who may have those beliefs? How? It's about the how of the how? You have to have a belief of acceptance about everyone is you want that intention. How? Through experiences of acceptance growing up. How? Hmm. The answer is what I created in my identity circle diagram thing a few weeks back. By having parents that accept who you are. Not to be confused with accepting everything you do without discussion / repercussions, etc. How? By having parents who accept themselves, first and foremost. How? You can't accept yourself without first knowing yourself. How? To reflect. How? To be comfortable silence. (Either individually or it's okay initially in a group setting.) How? To actually do it and practice it. It seems like a never-ending circle. Where do you 'start' to insert yourself into this circle? That's not the right question. It's that you insert yourself into this circle. Did you insert yourself into this circle? And how did you insert yourself into this circle? With what intention.
(see pic)
OH! So when you ask 'why' questions, you get to the bottom of something. It's a ~linear, hierarchical framework. However, 'how' questions follow a circular framework. One answer to a 'how' question will lead you to what you think is a deeper level of a rung on a ladder. But after you ask enough 'how's, you end up at a place you already were at. Similar to the chicken or the egg paradox. You've traversed the circle, not without benefits though. Because you understand the process, you can start the process at whichever point you'd like. There is no wrong answer. Just like a circle, there is no actual beginning or end. It just keeps going and going. The 7 Why's or similar methodology will help you set the why-intention. But the how-intention is never really set. unless you keep asking yourself how questions. I guess there's also a what-intention.
So intention is too broad of a term that is ambiguous then. There needs to be 3 sub-intentions: what-, why-, and how-intentions.
(see pic)
Ok, so let's say it's a cone or a cylinder (idk which one quite yet). People are flat, they lack depth initially. Then it's just a circle. The area of the circle is the what. The circumference is the how. When people have more why-intention, they gain more depth. It's transforms from a 2D circle into a 3D cylinder. The how-intention still goes around the circle. The why, as you get deeper creates more and more depth to the circle → cylinder. That's the height of the cylinder. Now everything that we learn is the area of the circle. As it gets 3D, the what (information) becomes the volume of the cylinder. The how is now the radius (of the cylinder, which dictates the circumference).
The volume of a cylinder = π(r^2)h. So we said the volume = what. Radius = how. Height = why. So what we know = π(how)^2(why). OH! Pi is constant across everyone, so it's really each one of us. Each of us have the same potential to fully realize it, so it's in there in all of us, a constant. π = who.
What we know = (who we are)(how we know^2)(why we know). So then who are we? Who we are = (what we know) / ((how we know^2)(why we know)).
How do we balance this equation? The easiest way is to have 1 for all of them. When we're imbalanced, we try filling up with more info let's say, trying to find more purpose at different points in our life, changing up the processes (aka habits & practices) all in an effort to change who we are. And we keep trying to raise each number, trying to find the right balance. Trying to rediscover that balance. But really, the simplest answer of 1 for everything was always right there in front of us. The how being squares actually makes sense because the systems and processes we set in place as well as learning through theory or experience can dictate to what extent we leverage what we know.
Ok, this was actually really cool. I think I'll definitely need to clean it up a bit before presenting it formally anywhere though. Having some cool animations or graphics to support it would be engaging and easier to understand for everyone.
No idea if this is revolutionary or if I'm just a psycho. 🤷🏿♂️ I guess it's true though of quotes like these "Madness and genius are two sides to the same coin."
Comments