All Work & No Play

I would like to distinguish between two related psychological states that I believe are rarely, if ever, distinguished. The first is fear, and the second is what I call “blockage,” as to my knowledge it does not yet have a name. Fear is an emotion with which we are surely all familiar; blockage is also familiar, though it is not often discussed, and when it is, it is considered as either part of fear, or as merely a failure of free will. Blockage is what makes action impossible. When a man is afraid to approach a woman, that is fear; when he does not approach women, even though he wants to, that is blockage. Although these two things are related, they are not the same – one may be afraid of women, but approach them anyway; also, one may find oneself completely avoiding certain activities without actually experiencing the emotion of fear. One is simply blocked. A pernicious but common misconception about blockage is that it is something over which a person has immediate and absolute control. One may be afraid independently of the will, the story goes, but whether or not to act is “up to you.” What is really being said here is that blockage has no cause; after all, what has a cause cannot simply be the product of free will, and advice like, “You just have to do it” is meaningless if blockage has a cause external to the will. I claim that, in fact, blockage does have a cause. When we see a pattern in nature (including human nature) we assume that pattern has a cause. Only when something is found to be random under even the closest scrutiny- as in the case of quantum mechanical measurement – are we allowed to claim that it has no cause. And blockage is by no means random – in fact, it follows very clear patterns, both in and between individuals. Whereas fear is unpleasant and troubling, blockage is debilitating; thus, it is incumbent upon us to understand this state and, as nearly as possible, find a cure.

Sometimes people say that one who cannot act is “too afraid,” thus implying that the solution to the blockage is to become less afraid. We can see this to be a false diagnosis, however. One may be as afraid as can be imagined, and yet act; likewise, one can be only slightly afraid of it, and yet be blocked. The fact that these two scenarios can occur in the same person in two different contexts is strong evidence that blockage is not merely a “weakness of the will,” but a complex conditioned psychological response in its own right. A coward is not one who is afraid, but one who is blocked. I do not imagine any coward ever was or could be cured by insisting that they “grow a spine,” or by any related advice. I think many have attempted (including this one), and I think they (we) have all failed.

Since making this distinction in my mind a few days ago, I have made it my foremost goal to “unblock” myself. I made a list of things I have not done because of being blocked, and have made it a point to do at least one of them every day. This has been much more effective than my previous, failed strategy of doing one thing I am afraid of every day. Focusing on inaction as the problem instead of fear has given me the freedom to feel afraid, or not, and act anyway. Two different problems, two different solutions. And I finally updated my blog!

Like any substance that directly alters your brain chemistry, caffeine is a drug, and as such, it has the same essential drawback; namely, it favors some brains states over others, and is addictive. Thus, the chronic caffeine user has a limited set of mental states available to him, a set defined by the drug. In this way, the drug limits our will.

In some instances, this limitation of will is useful. The chronically depressed person, for example, is caught in a self-sustaining, undesirable state – feeling depressed is demotivating, thus the person does not do the things which might take them out of the depressed state. The necessary solution would be to make recognizing the depressed state and becoming motivated to change it easier, thus requiring less raw motivation. By artificially placing the person in a more energetic, positive state through the use of a drug, we create the opportunity for the person to create anchors to those experiences. So, when they reenter the depressed stat, as when they are removed from or become accustomed to the drug, they can access those states more easily. (See Anchors.)

It is an evil of our current methodology that depression is viewed as “physical,” which is taken to be different than (and mutually exclusive with) “psychological,” or “willful.” In fact, this failure of understanding is pervasive in the public mind, and, seemingly, in the scientific community as well. That which is psychological is physical, period. To access a motivated state through anchoring accomplishes (if successful) the same physical result as is intended with administering a drug. The difference is that anchoring empowers the subject – he may choose to enter that state, or not. The drug takes away the choice. With a chronic depressive, temporarily removing that choice is good – the subject either does not know how to choose otherwise, or lacks the motivation to make the choice. Give him no choice, and you provide him with the opportunity to learn about other states. Permanently removing the option, however, seems an inferior solution.

Today, a quote from the Found Book of Truths:

Pride is the poison of our present society. Think you of the power one can gain by a show of submission. Allow the enemy to indulge his pride, and you shift his focus onto his own reflection, and away from the reality of his circumstances. What then might you accomplish?

Concerning this passage, the Considerative Commentaries has this to say:

Our movements for what is called “equality” – what have they gained? Where was their focus? Pride, of course. Through the ages, women have maintained control over the course of human societies through their authority over the creation and upbringing of children. How have they done this? By a simple superficial acquiescence; yet, look how quickly that power has been surrendered. Not men, but politics and institutions control our lives – the individual has lost all control. How has this occurred? By the deemphasis of individual empowerment.

I think we could also gain something by considering the following, from elsewhere in the Commentaries:

Consider that reason is the single greatest servant of individual empowerment. An individual who obtains both reason and a belief that he can learn needs for no knowledge; all necessary information will be his, as easily as a whale consumes plankton. In all attempts to educate, train, or instruct, make this the center of your efforts, and remember: reason is not achieved through knowledge, but always the other way around.