Another thing is the belief in having tangible results professionally. Things that we can’t measure are intangible and are devalued because they are perceived to have no or little value. When actually they are invaluable. Growth is intangible.
I think we set false limits on ourselves by aiming for things like certificates. Those are ways we’ve tried to quantify growth when we don’t need to. Quantifying anything reduces its holistic value. And that’s coming from me who wants to quantify everything.
When we lose sight of why we’re trying to measure something, then that measure becomes what we optimize for. And then we lose ourselves in that cycle. So that constant reflection of asking ourselves “Why am I quantifying something?” is important to recenter ourselves.
Relating this to career, when we look at larger companies, it’s easier to quantify where we work. It takes less effort to explain to someone “I work at Google” compared to “I work at 2ULaundry.” So since it’s easier to quantify and make tangible, there’s a bias towards that. And by quantifying in this context, I mean more than just numbers. It’s words as well.
Words quantify feelings. Certificates quantify growth.
Being ourselves, discovering who we truly are and realizing our potential, can’t really quantify that. Words and numbers are just approximations. Really, anything that we think, say, or do is just an approximation for the feeling we have within ourselves.
So the more we talk, think, and do (originating from our mind), the further we get away from our truest nature - LOVE & DIVINITY.
Is that why Swami always says to say as few words as possible?
Another reason for differing beliefs may be devotion to dogma. I was just starting to get to this part in the Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris discussion part 1.
Relating to this question, are my parents more on the absolutism side of the dogma spectrum compared to the relativism side? I think firmly believing in one or the other is itself a form of absolutism. A Catch-22 for relativists.
Having it in a sphere format instead of a discrete beginning and ending of a spectrum would make that geometrically true. The further you go towards relativism the closer you get to absolutism.
I think I’ve uncovered another deep belief in society.
The quantification of continuous ideas onto discrete 2D frameworks.
Whether that is a spectrum, quadrant, pyramid, or anything else. We’re limited by physical paper, screens, and more. We’re trying to quantify 3D, 4D+ feelings into 1D and 2D. Those are obviously going to lose something in translation.
VR & AR is starting to bridge that gap and create > 2D alternate realities. These types of technology will help us quantify things that were limited only to 2D realms previously to be expressed on a higher level.
There are higher forms of being than 3D obviously as well but I don’t think we can jump from 2D to 4D without going through a 3D phase.
I’m going to challenge you and myself to recognize when things are limited by their 2D-ness. And to look for ways to quantify things in a 3D way, whatever that looks like. Then we can literally be operating at a higher dimension.
Comments