Most of the time, what we fear in the future is magnified beyond what it would actually feel like to be in the moment.

Inaccurate thinking about the future, both too negative or too positive, is something in which we all do from time to time. Like Jefferson, we can certainly just jump into things and do it to see what it’s really like.

I would simple add that we can also think accurately and rationally about the future to be as founded as we can in reality.

Great post!

I think this is true in our behavior as well–the more we screw up and review where we went wrong, the sharper we get in our game.

Working through the hard–and paying attention to where we fell short–makes us stronger.

I’m not a logical positivist by a wide margin, but I feel their pain sometimes. There’s much to ponder here in this thread…

I mean that ego is a contraction in itself, contracting against “what is” by doing; it thinks it needs to do in order to be.

Only ego believes it needs to rule its destiny. It is true that being more aware of oneself one can steer the outcome a little, but ego is truly too small in the big game to really have any bigger effect on the whole. It does not mean that we are not in the game, just that the ego is not the main player by a long shot.

Ego is ok and necessary but it is also true that ego is completely mistaken in assuming doing is needed in order to be. But of course I have an ego too and make this mistake constantly.

I think Aristotle’s view was very wise considering the times, but is quite dated today if it only interpreted with a “law of attraction”-view point.

I believe in intention, absolutely. And perhaps this is a first step? But there is so much more.

I don’t hold just a position. I think all views are needed, more or less. I just like to open the discussion a little. Especially the ones that seem to be left out.

Thanks for a nice reply and a great blog!

Cheers!

That said, the point is intentional becoming. Hence Aristotle’s “what lies in our power to do, lies in our power not to do.” The unfortunate thing is just how much people aren’t being intentional about what they’re becoming – they’re alive but not living.

From a broader metaphysical perspective, there are different views on being. Some views posit presentism – the fact that all things already are – as a fundamental starting position. Your statement “feeling one has to do in order to be is a contraction (contradiction?)…you already are” represents that position. Another view posits change as the fundamental position – think of Heraclites here.

I think neither are complete, but that’s why I identify with process philosophy.

But on another note, I don’t think being has to do anything extra. It is, already. Being done.

I think you can interpret Aristotle in more than one ways.
To do, in order to be, does not necessarily refer to “actions” one has to do.
In a way, being or “beingness”, is an action itself no matter “your actions”.

Feeling one has to do in order to be is a great contraction. You already are.

So, it is clear this comes down to perspectives. Who is asking the question, really? And does this perspective actually have any real control?

We do create ourselves, yes. But from more than what we are consious of. The conscious part of us (just the tip on an iceberg really) involved in this activity is very tiny compared to our whole existence.

So, I might do things in order to try to be what I think I want to be but then the rest of me, plus the entire world has a lot of other opinions about it.

But absolutely, aside from the mind-chatting, doing is probably the best you can do. I mean, what else can you really “do”?

Tell me something that is not doing. Even “not doing” is doing, isn’t it?

Cheers!