Work Harder Than You Can [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

View Full Version : Work Harder Than You Can

Shezbeth

15th February 2015, 11:35

This is a realization that I have been working on for some time now, that I would like to share.

I am on the fence as far as whether anyone can really change things, and I am disinterested in arguing that point. Whether individuals, groups, etc. are actually capable of changing what is into what will be or whether they assist what will be in manifesting - both in my estimation - whatever will be, if it can be said to be an emergence will come of a potentiation.

Potentiate is among my favorite of words; it means a meeting of potential which involves a development beyond existing limitations and an expansion of capability to surpass previous achievement/ability.

The maintenance of existing ability - a stagnation depending on one's perspective - is antithetical to the concept of potentiation. Whether mental, physical, or spiritual, there is a refinement, growth, or evolution that comes amidst potentiation, and it does not come idly or easily; it comes of doing one's best, and specifically by doing more than one's perception of their best.

I phrase the idea - as with the title - thusly:

Work harder than you can.

To phrase it so, I am directly referencing that the conscious mind will and does regularly place limitations, expectations, and obstacles in front of what an individual is actually capable of, and that the most effective potentiation comes of disregarding those perceived limitations, etc.

Allow me to dissect:

Work

The idea of working does not necessarily mean physically, though if possible this should be included. Work involves and incorporates some form of exertion, an expenditure - or investment if you will - of energy and time.

Hard

Hard is synonymous in this case of with 'vigor', 'intent', 'fortitude', as well as a near-endless list of qualifiers. The general idea is that there is an intensity, a lack of reservation that is observable, detectable, and potentially quantifiable.

Hard-er Than

Not only is there an expenditure, and not only is there an emphasis, but that expenditure and emphasis is greater than previous. It is 'as compared to', 'developing from' as well as 'progressing beyond'.

You Can

This element addresses perceptions and the understandings that surround one's self. It focuses on previous expression while incorporating a developing understanding of potential. Let's bring it back together.

Work Harder Than You Can.

Exert yourself in the chosen field, specialty, subject, or manner;

To a greater capacity, expression, or degree;

Beyond your expectations, previous depictions, and calculated prognoses;

Seizing and manifesting the real levels of potential that exist beyond your wildest dreams.

In weight lifting, one of the purposes of a 'spotter' is to encourage and push one's self beyond the stopping point which they might otherwise entertain to achieve something beyond that level. This mentality - I am certain - is essential in an emergent philosophy and in an emergent society (the one individual, the other collective).

I'm not particularly convinced of the viability of communism for example, but I am certain that such an economic system could only be perpetuated by a prevalence of this ideology. Aristotle is credited with the phrase:

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence therefore is not an act, but a habit."

Emergence, potentiation, or by whatever name one prefers to call it is not simply an achievement, it is an achieve-able pattern - a status if you will - that can be accomplished and maintained. This accomplishment is beyond what/where you think this is, and only you can find out how far.

So, I would entreat all who are reading to embrace the idea, not just for their own benefit but also for the collective benefit that can be achieved. One's best is far better than 'less-than' one's best, but one can always achieve more-than if they are truly invested in doing so.

Finefeather

15th February 2015, 12:02

I am on the fence as far as whether anyone can really change things, and I am disinterested in arguing that point. Whether individuals, groups, etc. are actually capable of changing what is into what will be or whether they assist what will be in manifesting - both in my estimation - whatever will be, if it can be said to be an emergence will come of a potentiation.

All individuals and groups have already changed what they were doing previously to what they are up to now...they will do the same thing tomorrow or maybe next week...or next year.
There is nothing anyone is doing right now that they did not some how have a hand in manifesting...life is a continuous cycle of cause and effect...the trick is to consider your next cause by moderating your present reaction (effect).

Guish

15th February 2015, 12:58

eaglespirit

15th February 2015, 13:10

Something came from my mouth during a Maths lesson and students made a poster of it. I said that "perfection is an asymptote". It means that you can never reach it and you always need to work harder. However, In any mastery, you need to reach the state of no-mind where you are one with the event. One example will be Schumacher. When he raced, his heart beat was normal no matter the speed of driving and the focus was so intense that he couldn't think of anything else, not even his driving.

Yep Guish...before I got 'zapped' by Spirit on that Native American Ceremony Hill in 2007 I use to meditate on my motorcycle in the mountains...it would simply 'just happen' and became like mesmerizing beautiful spirit music while weaving through the mountain roads!
http://www.openroadjourney.com/UserImages/Motorcycle_1179.jpg

Guish

15th February 2015, 13:25

sigma6

16th February 2015, 05:31

In weight lifting, one of the purposes of a 'spotter' is to encourage and push one's self beyond the stopping point which they might [not] otherwise entertain to achieve something beyond that level. This mentality - I am certain - is essential in an emergent philosophy and in an emergent society (the one individual, the other collective).
This caught my attention... a great metaphor, I studied muscular failure intensely (excuse the pun) and came to the conclusion that pretty much near everyone in the gym had an imperfect understanding of how it worked in practice... stunning... a perfect example of how ego totally overcomes reason... with predictable results... in fact I never saw anybody do it properly with rare exception. (I consider steroid use totally cheating, often those guys were lifting lesser weights (physically weaker) although they "looked" stronger... along with a host of other potential complications and side effects, that's the difference between "body" building vs "strength" training. Strength training will build ligament and bone strength in a perfect balance, that steroid use never will (why their bones snap and muscles rip out of their sockets occasionally)

It is true, it does create a certain mental state, there is a philosophy to it!... to achieve this point of pushing oneself to this limit becomes more of a mental discipline than a physical one. There is no jerking movement, that is completely wrong (literally called 'cheating', has a very limited application) And the point of muscular failure feels like you are suffocating (your muscles are starving for oxygen from the huge rush of lactic acid) and therefore there is an instinctive avoidance, yet you are actually in the safest position, because your work is of such short duration, all the stress is on your muscles and not your joints, so the whole exercise is mentally disciplining yourself (over and above the physical discipline) it's about discovering a secret world of counter intuitive principles about how your body really works. The 'mental' approach to pushing yourself is definitely the way to go...

Also it is humbling, why nobody does it properly in a "social setting" (especially in the beginning, because it is not the amount of weight that counts, since failure can happen at any weight level) It's the discipline of form and pushing through the largely, mental 'avoidance impulse') Think about it, your goal is to literally fail (muscularly) I love the philosophy of it. Success from controlled repeated failure, or consistent repeated failure as the measure of success. The only way to know you hit it, is when you can't feel if your muscles are moving up or down...(that's a sure sign) that's why a really good spotter is a necessity... You can't truly achieve failure without a good spotter, unless you have some specialized equipment (which I am not sure even exists)... as free weights are another important factor (although you can even do "body" exercises)... In any event, it's a fascinating concept, when you think about all the dynamics, the practice, the discipline, the unmistakable hidden philosophy in it, the biological compensation effect. And finally, seeing and experiencing the reward. I'm getting motivated just thinking about it again...lol... Thanks for triggering that... wanted to confirm your intuition is absolutely right about that...

WhiteLove

16th February 2015, 20:55

Hmm... I'm just getting so strange quotes in my head when I'm reflecting around this, quotes like "don't live a loser's life". :o The quote from me in an attempt to balance it in a positive way would be "allow yourself to life in your life". This means that although life is lived, you can start living in life by allowing that what brings life, to life. Jesus: "I am the way, the truth and the life." From this point of view, rather than to work harder than you can - collect treasures of heaven.

I3164dbliVo

Shezbeth

16th February 2015, 23:06

In my professional and personal experience, I find countless examples of individuals - young and old, seasoned and 'fresh' - with a predisposed idea of just 'how much' they are capable of; to a woman, man, or child I have also found that they are capable of far more than they have convinced themselves they are capable of. As an individual, I can readily comprehend why such limitations are placed on one's disposition. Professional environments are especially easy to grasp, as one tends to 'make the same' (re: hourly wages) regardless the intensity one applies; indeed one can be seen to be short-changing themselves by working harder/faster, as their 'bottom line' doesn't effectively change.

Not only is this readily not the case, but is an example of some of the more insidious agreements that one can make in their strategy of interacting with the world.

It is true that when one works an hourly job, they are earning the same wage/hour if they complete a task in 2 hours as they do if they complete it in 4. In a self-oriented perspective, one could assert that they benefit more from the decreased intensity that is met with equal earnings, indeed their output/input is more favorable if analyzed simply from the standpoint of work input to incentivized output.

Allow me to suggest that this mentality - while easy to comprehend - is horses hit.

When one makes regular practice of working under a lesser intensity, they are making a practice of doing so; they are beginning and/or maintaining the practice of 'doing less', from which predisposition originates. A preference toward 'doing less' develops, and over time the individual can be observed - relied on even - to 'do less' than their capability, from which expectations (both internal and external) begin to form. These expectations become enmeshed with quantum potential, and the individual becomes entrained to produce 'less'. Allow me to reiterate; I don't mean 'less' in the sense that what is produced is somehow inadequate, I am simply referring to the idea that what is produced is noticeably less than the potential output.

In a collective environment - as contributed by psychological and sociological aspects such as group/peer influence, reward/consequence issuance (in a hierarchy), etc. - the 'average' output decreases over time, as participants gradually learn new and effective measures to produce the same output with less effort. This can be said to be an increase in efficiency, except that the immediate beneficiaries are the individuals themselves as opposed to the collective of individuals.

When one is fixated on 'working harder', they condition themselves and apply innovation and learning toward the process of doing more, as opposed to the process of doing less. Doing more involves taking on new and larger tasks, whether it means the refinement and evolution of existing methods or developing new methods and approaches. The more one does - and the more one consistently does more - the more they acclimate themselves toward doing more, which has a comprehensive effect. When one pushes their own boundaries and thresholds, they develop (physiologically AND mentally) faster, and the gains that are achieved are reinvested toward doing more. In short, one's potential can be seen to magnify as opposed to plateau.

In summary, it boils down to which is preferable; on the one hand there is the perception of 'Good Enough' and on the other hand there is the perception of 'Getting Better'. There is nothing wrong with 'Good Enough', and it has a definitively viable place in one's cognition and strategy. Equally, there is nothing wrong with 'Getting Better', and can be said/observed to be constructive if properly applied. Both concepts have their time and place, yet between the two one is particularly more conducive toward both personal and collective evolution. 'Good Enough' is quite literally good enough, but it can always get better, and I would encourage, advise, posit, and promote the idea of 'Getting Better' as - if nothing else - the thing that overwhelmingly get's better in that event is you.

Shezbeth

17th February 2015, 00:19

Allow me offer a literal example. In my profession, I feed (read: operate, oversee) a saw that splits boards laterally from 2"x6" into two 1"x6" boards (of whatever length, which varies). This process requires a 'piler', or a person at the outfeed of the machine to take the boards and stack them in a reasonably (read: not perfect, but suitably) neat pile to be moved into storage by a forklift.

In this process, I regularly 'go through' pilers; when a 'new' (to the operation) piler starts, I set the machine at 1.5 linear feet/second. The new piler will quickly (if they're suitable) acclimate themselves to the workload and speed, and a full day of production will ensue. The next day, I set the machine at 1.6 f/s, then 1.7 f/s, and so on, so forth. Over a span of 2 weeks or so (most people 'top out' at 2 f/s) individuals who - at the outset - are perfectly comfortable with the speed and production level will express (emphasis on the perception and iteration) that the increasing level is beyond their capability.

On the one hand, I sympathize; it is gruelling to constantly and consistently operate to an increasing demand, and to those not otherwise predisposed to engage an increasing intensity it can seem quite unreasonable and unnecessary. It doesn't help that I'm among the smaller individuals in my profession, yet despite this I can easily operate at over 2.5 f/s (from the piler position). As far as company standards/expectations are concerned, this is well above the prescribed 'daily output' (in fact, 1.5 f/s is expressly sufficient). While this level would satisfy expectations, I am not content to simply 'satisfy expectations'; it has nothing to do with satisfying external expectations, it is about surpassing internal potential and capability. In context, it doesn't matter that the company doesn't demand more, it only matters to me that I'm capable of more, and I'm all-but dying to see what quantities can be achieved by that otherwise undisclosed value of 'more'.

Just a few days ago, my piler stated in no uncertain terms "You need to turn the machine down" (with expletives). After a bit of back and forth, I was successful in getting him to amend his stance to "I want you to turn the machine down", from "I can't go that fast" to "I haven't figured out how to go that fast yet".

This change in perception goes along with what I am describing/advocating. When one recognizes that their own thoughts and perceptions are directly responsible for their actual/perceived limitations and then begins the process of casting off these beliefs, their potential can grow at a rate and degree that is limited only by the intensity to which the person applies themselves.

Faith - in one's self quite simply - can move mountains, especially when the mountain is the self.

turiya

18th February 2015, 20:40

Socrates quote:

It is possible that a man could live twice as long if he didn't spend the first half of his life acquiring habits that shortens the other half
I would disagree with the OP. Young people are continually told that they need to become someone other than who they are. That they are not accepted as they are, they need to become someone, something, else. "Don't just sit there like a dunce, do something!" is a common phrase heard when a child is growing up. Being is secondary to doing.

It seems to me that the OP is advocating becoming more efficient in doing things with respect to time. Hence, becoming a better cog-in-the-wheel for society. Sacrificing one's well-being can be the trade-off for becoming a better cog, a better "team player". Mind you, sacrificing one's well-being for external rewards lay at the basis of your classic workaholic. The idea that happiness is not found in this present moment, but comes at some point in the future - i.e. work hard today so you can enjoy your happiness at some later future time. This is what this philosophy is saying. Bullocks, imo.

A spotter in a exercise program is also there to prevent one from injuring themselves unnecessary. Certainly in repeatedly performing the same task over & over again, one becomes more efficient in their repeated performances - its advocating to become more & more robot-like, and less acclimated to what is presently going on within the body, less in tune with what the body is communicating to the head.

From my view, I see that societies encourage their members to become good masochists. An ever-ongoing practice of having its members sacrificing their body for some ideal. This is so the society as a whole can survive & remain healthy - at least in appearance. This idea, which is propagated by the society, has long ago entered into the public schools (public fool system), the colleges & the universities. The emphasis is on doing more, not on being more. Doing more equates to having more. And the idea of having more translates into one's becoming happier - not true. The bottom line is: not to be concerned with one's own well-being as a healthy individual, but to be a good conformist - to be a good performer, a good "team player" who is rewarded by the society. This is so the society itself can better survive, remain healthy, become healthier - i.e. society becoming better, is not about the individual.

This ideology comes at a cost. Yes, having a society of "robots", certainly the society will survive, from the outset may even look healthier, but this comes at the cost of the individual's own well-being.

The society is perfectly okay with teaching its members to become good masochists, because hurting oneself is not so easily detected by the other members of the society, it remains a hidden, an individual affair. The society has found the trick, the members of society are taught to police themselves. For example, showing anger in public is unacceptable, because this would show disharmony & it could affect other members, so the members are taught to repress such emotional outbursts & other emotions, as well.

This is masochism - to swallow these types of emotions, drawing them within to be buried inside the individual, without being allowed to be expressed. No one will know that the repressed anger lay within another individual - unexpressed on a deeper level, only until it suddenly bursts ultimately into a "postal event", so to speak. Until then, it will lay hidden in the dark corners of each of the individual members, making for better 'cogs'. Teaching people to discipline themselves to repress their emotions, the feelings... if you feel to vent sadness, vent the anger, the jealousy, feeling that one is not good enough, then work harder, become a better person. Again, this ideology benefits the society, not the individual.

This you can find that is what's going on in George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four."
The society remains sick at its core.

Shezbeth

18th February 2015, 22:02

Thank you for a brilliant outline of what it is like to not accurately interpret what I am saying. To begin, a few rhetorical questions.

Is a farmer who seeks to grow larger and more stable crops 'becoming a robot'? Is a butcher who is intent on refining his skills 'a robot'? Is a teacher who seeks to find new ways of appealing to their students and inspire them 'becoming a better cog'? I could go on,....

To me, these descriptions reek of dismissive rationale. When I refer to society and/or the mass benefiting I am simply indicating that its not a simple STS/STO idea, not that 'service to the mass' is a justification. It is true that one can over do and otherwise malign themselves in pursuit of continued emergence, but the onus is on the individual for not knowing/understanding and having a 'relationship' to their body.

I'm not advocating that people become something they are not, I am advocating that they strive harder to express what they are. If a person's 'well being' is dependent on not expanding their potential and capability, then yes I am advocating dispatching with such perceptions, though 'team player' or 'better cog' don't even enter into the equation. External rewards aren't even a consideration! It is not for anyone else's direct benefit - except the individual - that I advocate so.

At no point have I suggested that one disregard the messages and communications they receive from the body. IMO, one can't refine their skills without listening to the body, so I really have trouble seeing at what point that perception originated.

How does one 'be' more without doing more pray tell? I'm not at all suggesting that one repress their emotions and feelings; by all means process them! When one is finished doing so, there are a near-endless number of ways a person can apply and re-apply themselves that will immediately make their own situation more desirable (read: increased quality of life) and potentially benefit others in a likewise fashion.

Please comprehend, the tone of this thread is not a dictatorial "You should work harder!", its a "You are capable of more than you have been convinced (by yourself and others) you are". It's not about negatively demanding more, it's about positively aspiring to achieve greater potential. It prescribes a determined continuation of development and a dismissal of resting on one's laurels, while cursorily referring to the physiological, mental, (and implicitly spiritual) benefits and gains of doing so.

In one's eagerness to detract, I must suggest that they missed a crucial part of the OP; I will reiterate it here (with emphasis) :

Exert yourself in the chosen field, specialty, subject, or manner;

To a greater capacity, expression, or degree;

Beyond your expectations, previous depictions, and calculated prognoses;

Seizing and manifesting the real levels of potential that exist beyond your wildest dreams.

Where on earth does one interpret an advocation towards 'becoming what one is not'? All I see is encouragement to continue becoming what one is.

PurpleLama

18th February 2015, 23:01

Repeating a task to develop a skill to the point which mastery results is an idea derived from martial arts, not from being a better automaton.

Shezbeth

19th February 2015, 08:59

Repeating a task to develop a skill to the point which mastery results is an idea derived from martial arts, not from being a better automaton.

I couldn't say it better. :first:

turiya

19th February 2015, 18:27

Repeating a task to develop a skill to the point which mastery results is an idea derived from martial arts, not from being a better automaton.

Martial Arts does indeed involve the training of the physical body to be somewhat of a automaton. How else could an individual be consistently accurate with where to place a strike. The OP does not particularly use this analogy to make the point. In Martial Arts it is the participant that becomes his own "spotter" via meditative self-observation. It is the awareness of the individual that lay behind & directs the conditioned physical body in its action(s).

Read more & you will see what I mean...

Allow me offer a literal example. In my profession, I feed (read: operate, oversee) a saw that splits boards laterally from 2"x6" into two 1"x6" boards (of whatever length, which varies). This process requires a 'piler', or a person at the outfeed of the machine to take the boards and stack them in a reasonably (read: not perfect, but suitably) neat pile to be moved into storage by a forklift.

In this process, I regularly 'go through' pilers; when a 'new' (to the operation) piler starts, I set the machine at 1.5 linear feet/second. The new piler will quickly (if they're suitable) acclimate themselves to the workload and speed, and a full day of production will ensue. The next day, I set the machine at 1.6 f/s, then 1.7 f/s, and so on, so forth. Over a span of 2 weeks or so (most people 'top out' at 2 f/s) individuals who - at the outset - are perfectly comfortable with the speed and production level will express (emphasis on the perception and iteration) that the increasing level is beyond their capability.

On the one hand, I sympathize; it is gruelling to constantly and consistently operate to an increasing demand, and to those not otherwise predisposed to engage an increasing intensity it can seem quite unreasonable and unnecessary. It doesn't help that I'm among the smaller individuals in my profession, yet despite this I can easily operate at over 2.5 f/s (from the piler position). As far as company standards/expectations are concerned, this is well above the prescribed 'daily output' (in fact, 1.5 f/s is expressly sufficient). While this level would satisfy expectations, I am not content to simply 'satisfy expectations'; it has nothing to do with satisfying external expectations, it is about surpassing internal potential and capability. In context, it doesn't matter that the company doesn't demand more, it only matters to me that I'm capable of more, and I'm all-but dying to see what quantities can be achieved by that otherwise undisclosed value of 'more'.

Just a few days ago, my piler stated in no uncertain terms "You need to turn the machine down" (with expletives). After a bit of back and forth, I was successful in getting him to amend his stance to "I want you to turn the machine down", from "I can't go that fast" to "I haven't figured out how to go that fast yet".

This change in perception goes along with what I am describing/advocating. When one recognizes that their own thoughts and perceptions are directly responsible for their actual/perceived limitations and then begins the process of casting off these beliefs, their potential can grow at a rate and degree that is limited only by the intensity to which the person applies themselves.

Faith - in one's self quite simply - can move mountains, especially when the mountain is the self.

Seems to me, that in what you've stated, it was not the "piler's" own decision to attempt to do more per period of time, but it was your decision to push him, not his decision to push himself. After all, you also admitted that the company is completely satisfied with the slower rate of 1.5 linear feet/second.

Its perfectly alright for another to come to this philosophy on their own, as long as its their own willingness to do so. In the example that you have given, this was not the case. You also admit that
"its grueling to constantly and consistently operate to an increasing demand, and to those not otherwise predisposed to engage an increasing intensity, it can seem quite unreasonable and unnecessary."

In this case, yes, it is totally unreasonable & unnecessary, as the demand you speak of does not originate within the piler, or pilers, themselves. On the contrary, the idea is imposed on others, this idea originates from outside of the "piler(s)" that you go through". And I would suspect, under these kinds of work conditions, you probably "go through" quite a number of different "pilers", for the obvious reason. It is your own idea that your "pilers" should go along with, it is your programmed form of pushing, and not an idea coming from within any of the so-called "pilers" themselves.

Like I said, I can understand what you're saying if it was the individual piler's own willingness & choice to push himself. But the idea comes not from the "piler", the idea does not even come from the company, but it comes from you. Perhaps the "teacher" should go back to classroom - not to teach, but to learn more about human psychology, and the freedom of choice, as opposed to imposing your own will & ideas on to others.

Shezbeth

20th February 2015, 10:02

To clarify, the pilers are subject to an exceptional increase in production beyond their volition; absolutely true. What I don't dictate is their response to working harder. The majority tell themselves, me, and anyone else who will listen about how they can't, while a select - and carefully noted - few figure out they can perform per demand.

The way I see it, I - and everyone else - can only 'do' one of two things: one can do their best, or they can do less than their best. Whichever one is chosen - on average as well as in particular - is the one that the individual will get better at.