Indifference as Multiplier
Each success increases confidence; each failure decreases it.
The organism's need, in relation to the objective, or the means towards an objective, determines its relationship of caring.
The more it needs the more it cares.
Means is often mistaken as the objective... and so hedonism confuses the sensation for the goal.
Being in the zone:
A state of complete focus upon the objective, where no collateral concerns enter consciousness to decrease the will's focus upon the objective.
Aggregate energies efficiently directed - optimum performance.
In such a state caring ceases to factor in. It falls out of consciousness, becoming the underlying motivator, and not an inhibiting loss of focus.
Mind is completely focused upon objective.
Each experience increases, or decreases, the mind's ability to focus, as the particular increases or decreases in importance.
More so when objective is a prime need - less so when it is a secondary need.
As confidence increases the particular objective decreases in importance; it becomes a means towards an underlying end with the particular means losing significance.
Ironic that confidence diminishes the importance of the particular.
Any failure is an exception, compared to past success.
Lack of confidence multiplies the importance of the particular.
Any success is an exception, compared to past failures.
The tipping point is reached after multiple exceptions to past experiences, in relation to the individual psychological stamina and desire for the end, re-balances the organism's self-esteem.
Irony of multiple failures
Mind becomes accustomed to failure, expecting ti with every attempt, and so the particular loses importance, imitating confidence.
Mind shifts objective, and what remains converts to a means towards a different end: for instance for practice/training technique, for validation assessment fo means and the end, for exposing the means as what it is etc.
Irony of indifference
Not caring for the outcome is confused as confidence.
Individual gains focus by being uncaring about the end, and, therefore, the means towards it.
Attaining it would require a reversal, interpreted as duplicity.
The victor refuses the benefit, the prize, shaming it as undesirable, and easily attained.
Dominance, a product of ease, confused for effort.
Exceptional inheritance, confused as exceptional personal effort.
Failure, a product of dis-ease, confused for a lack of effort.
Unexceptional inheritance confused for unexceptional effort.
Conundrum of genetics.
Inherited ease leads to atrophy.
Cycles repeat.
Popularity confused as uniformity
An objective made popular is distributed uniformly within a population - each member is equally driven towards it.
All failure to do so, is blamed on genetic inheritance, or lack of effort.
Any desire below the average is accused of hypocrisy; all desire above the average is accused of obsession.
Personal judgment of other, is never evaluated.
Error of confusing sympathy for empathy, and empathy for sympathy.
Objectives desirability is established as a uniform value - a standard.
All costs/benefits are determined in relation to this universal standard.
Failure to display the appropriate level of desire is blamed on an individual failure.
The mean's self-assessment, as a factor - if applicable
When the means to an end is, itself, a conscious being, with its own psychology, founded on its own experiences - cost/benefit analysis - it becomes the unknown factor.
Level of self-knowledge and self-esteem, in the means to an end, acts as an additional multiplier - the unforeseen factor.
Exploiting low self-esteem in the means, increases the possibility of success in the attainment of the end - a compensating factor for lack of confidence.
Unforeseen factors are family, friends, protecting the means from its own low self-esteem; random events, and competitors, also evaluating the means as exploitable.
High self-esteem as a determining factor
Time gradually erodes confidence.
High self-esteem slowly deteriorates, in proportion to the desire for the end.
As usual the rule about exposing vulnerability applies.
Hiding weakness increases the other's appreciation of confidence - ascribed to experiences and/or on past successes.
The evaluating consciousness uses self as the standard for evaluating other.
The other falling below the judging mind's self-assessment, its own self-esteem, determines the level of acceptable weakness in the means to an end.
If the conscious other is the end itself, and no merely a means toward it, the same applies.
Paradox of Subjectivity
Danger of confusing empathy for sympathy.
The judging mind will refuse responsibility for a wrong assessment.
The other will have failed to meet with its judgments.
What discrepancy between theory and performance is recognized will be blamed on the other's hypocrisy, or the other's failings.
Esteem of other decreases.
Judging mind is absolved of the possibility of weakness - self-esteem is preserved and increased.
Each success increases confidence; each failure decreases it.
The organism's need, in relation to the objective, or the means towards an objective, determines its relationship of caring.
The more it needs the more it cares.
Means is often mistaken as the objective... and so hedonism confuses the sensation for the goal.
Being in the zone:
A state of complete focus upon the objective, where no collateral concerns enter consciousness to decrease the will's focus upon the objective.
Aggregate energies efficiently directed - optimum performance.
In such a state caring ceases to factor in. It falls out of consciousness, becoming the underlying motivator, and not an inhibiting loss of focus.
Mind is completely focused upon objective.
Each experience increases, or decreases, the mind's ability to focus, as the particular increases or decreases in importance.
More so when objective is a prime need - less so when it is a secondary need.
As confidence increases the particular objective decreases in importance; it becomes a means towards an underlying end with the particular means losing significance.
Ironic that confidence diminishes the importance of the particular.
Any failure is an exception, compared to past success.
Lack of confidence multiplies the importance of the particular.
Any success is an exception, compared to past failures.
The tipping point is reached after multiple exceptions to past experiences, in relation to the individual psychological stamina and desire for the end, re-balances the organism's self-esteem.
Irony of multiple failures
Mind becomes accustomed to failure, expecting ti with every attempt, and so the particular loses importance, imitating confidence.
Mind shifts objective, and what remains converts to a means towards a different end: for instance for practice/training technique, for validation assessment fo means and the end, for exposing the means as what it is etc.
Irony of indifference
Not caring for the outcome is confused as confidence.
Individual gains focus by being uncaring about the end, and, therefore, the means towards it.
Attaining it would require a reversal, interpreted as duplicity.
The victor refuses the benefit, the prize, shaming it as undesirable, and easily attained.
Dominance, a product of ease, confused for effort.
Exceptional inheritance, confused as exceptional personal effort.
Failure, a product of dis-ease, confused for a lack of effort.
Unexceptional inheritance confused for unexceptional effort.
Conundrum of genetics.
Inherited ease leads to atrophy.
Cycles repeat.
Popularity confused as uniformity
An objective made popular is distributed uniformly within a population - each member is equally driven towards it.
All failure to do so, is blamed on genetic inheritance, or lack of effort.
Any desire below the average is accused of hypocrisy; all desire above the average is accused of obsession.
Personal judgment of other, is never evaluated.
Error of confusing sympathy for empathy, and empathy for sympathy.
Objectives desirability is established as a uniform value - a standard.
All costs/benefits are determined in relation to this universal standard.
Failure to display the appropriate level of desire is blamed on an individual failure.
The mean's self-assessment, as a factor - if applicable
When the means to an end is, itself, a conscious being, with its own psychology, founded on its own experiences - cost/benefit analysis - it becomes the unknown factor.
Level of self-knowledge and self-esteem, in the means to an end, acts as an additional multiplier - the unforeseen factor.
Exploiting low self-esteem in the means, increases the possibility of success in the attainment of the end - a compensating factor for lack of confidence.
Unforeseen factors are family, friends, protecting the means from its own low self-esteem; random events, and competitors, also evaluating the means as exploitable.
High self-esteem as a determining factor
Time gradually erodes confidence.
High self-esteem slowly deteriorates, in proportion to the desire for the end.
As usual the rule about exposing vulnerability applies.
Hiding weakness increases the other's appreciation of confidence - ascribed to experiences and/or on past successes.
The evaluating consciousness uses self as the standard for evaluating other.
The other falling below the judging mind's self-assessment, its own self-esteem, determines the level of acceptable weakness in the means to an end.
If the conscious other is the end itself, and no merely a means toward it, the same applies.
Paradox of Subjectivity
Danger of confusing empathy for sympathy.
The judging mind will refuse responsibility for a wrong assessment.
The other will have failed to meet with its judgments.
What discrepancy between theory and performance is recognized will be blamed on the other's hypocrisy, or the other's failings.
Esteem of other decreases.
Judging mind is absolved of the possibility of weakness - self-esteem is preserved and increased.
