#inherency

[ailelie]

In policy debate there's this idea called "inherency" which is basically the reason why your plan isn't already in practice.

There are three main kinds:

Structural (e.g., physical barriers, laws against it)

Attitudinal (e.g., people doubt or dislike it)

Existential (i.e., it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist)

I've learned that this is a fantastic framework for thinking through my personal barriers.

Why haven't I done the dishes?

Structural: I haven't bought more dish soap yet.

Attitudinal: I hate doing dishes and don't want to.

Existential: Well, I'm not doing them right now, so I'm not going to do them.

Existential sounds weird, but it is entirely too common. Often when I end up endlessly, mindlessly scrolling on social media, I have other tasks I need and want to do. I have zero structural or attitudinal barriers, and yet I'm still not doing the tasks.

It is an existential barrier.

Structural inherency is solved by removing the barrier. Attitudinal inherency can be changed with rewards, reframing, etc. Existential, though?

The only way to deal with existential inherency is to do the thing or, at least, start it. This is where strategies like "just move" and "set a 10 minute timer" work best.

Anyway. This framework helps me because I am better able to articulate what's going on in my head and am better able to pinpoint what kind of strategy will help best.

All the rewards in the world won't put dish soap in my cabinet or change the fact that I'm not currently doing the thing.

[the-dewdrop-read-deep]

"What suggestions of imperturbability and being, as against the human trait of mere seeming. Then the qualities, almost emotional, palpably artistic, heroic, of a tree; so innocent and harmless, yet so savage." - Walt Whitman After Walt Whitman suffered a stroke at the age of 54, he spent his time immersed in nature as he slowly recovered his health.

[shadoweventual]

It is capability not ambition that is the foundation of a well-built thing, something sustainable. You succeed where you are capable at the ground level, then other things come into play to help you keep it.

You can’t just be interested. That isn’t enough; almost anything is interesting. You must know before beginning that you’re right to want it. You’re right to want it because you know you’re capable of having it.

I think this is what they call: believing in yourself. It’s not a fight against your interests. Interests are great, even necessary. This is settling into what’s been waiting for your attention, all along. ***

*I was reading back over this today and thinking further on the point. Not only am I talking about a capability, something inherent, something true to yourself but it could also be something you aren’t necessarily known for, yet. This ‘thing that’s been waiting for your attention all along’ may be something you’ve never tried. Some people do get it right the first time around like the weird kid who was always hanging out at the bottom of the pool is now a leading marine biologist, for example, but I think that’s rare. For most of us, our truest talents or at least our truest capabilities are pushed aside for the business of living a life that maintains the choices we’ve made instead, which of course we must do.

I guess my point in this follow up is to challenge the idea that your truest calling is that thing everyone expects you to do. It may not be that thing you’ve always lamented the absence of in your life. Those obvious things could just be the ‘interests’ I mentioned. Maybe there’s something you’re misidentifying. You have a unique perspective on something, eg: shapes, colors, speech, music, nature, movement, food, clothing, and so on. There is something you are inherently capable of achieving because of the depth with which you have always understood it.

-gwyn

[catchthedrearyrain]

Inherency of the Soul

First, I make no claim that I am assured to be correct.  Second, I claim that man is not inherently evil, nor is he inherently good.  Neither assumption can trully define a man's soul; no sure statement can make right and wrong so simple and trite.  To claim that man is inherently evil degrades God's creation yet to claim him inherently good degrades the necessity and power of Christ's death.  No, if mam is inherently anything I stand that he is inherently lost.  For whatelse can even begin to describe the wandering journeysthat we make, and how so many fall from any path worth taking.  Man must be one who searches and does not always find.  And one who is lost, is always deserving of our pity.