Good advice, though in the end ot still boils down to "accept yourself", which is the kind of advice she said she found unhelpful at the beginning... I think this is kind of a "Monad tutorial situation", were the important part is not the words, but the intuitive understanding... And once one finally achieved some intuitive understanding, one wants to help the world and spread it, without realizing that the only way is to use the words one found unhelpful for so long... But sometimes the 101st reformulation is what makes someone's understanding make "click", so why not.
Anyways, this is not a critic to the author as such, just a recognition of the phenomenon. I am actually tempted to bring in my own words there, in case my particular reformulation can help someone. I am familiar with the kind of "vision" (for the lack of a better term) the author describes, and they can be extremely healing. However, I think it is a mistake to overinterpret those: oh, ok, this village is actually the set of my personality traits, and I need to show them love to integrate them and blabla... I mean, it can be a valid interpretation, but in my experience it is not useful. Much better is to develop a sense of what feels useful in the moment, and let the image develop on its own agenda. It feels like it would fit to kneel and ask for foregiveness? Try it. Or maybe what feels good it to let the Smurf Army crawl under your skin and break you to pieces. Let it happen. But most often than not, trying too hard to interpret what is happening (or worse, what is "right" or "wrong") according to some theory just gets in the way.
Yeah classic "all the annoying stuff my parents said was right" situation. Then you start saying the same annoying stuff to your kids.
When you boil down a complex spiritual solution like this to one phrase, "accept yourself" seems to be correct. But someone who hasn't gotten there yet can't "un-boil" the solution to make it work for them. The actual solution is probably very specific to that person, and nebulous to the point where they can't put it into actionable words even when they do figure it out.
I tend to reproduce what my parent said, but usually the intent behind that is pretty different.
Example: "you must have good scores at school else you'll have no future" is repeated as "you should have good scores because learning broadens your horizons and helps you to grow"
It boils down to the same thing, but, hopefully, the pressure is weaker.
I've had same thought about a lot of Buddhist writings. One main point is to not need the writings. Understanding is beyond the writings itself. It seems like maybe a lot of the writings, are people working out their own path, their own understanding, and then wanting to share, even if the main point is not needing the writing to begin with.
Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.
As you mention Buddhism, there are actually a few things both in the Pali canon and modern teachings that come to mind and illuminate the present discussion:
- in the Pali Canon (the oldest recollection of "discourses" attributed to the Buddha), the Buddha teaches very different things to different people. There are very technical suttas about advanced meditation practices for monks, but there are also suttas that are very down to earth and centered on "earthly" concerns. There is for instance a touching one where the Buddha teaches to an old couple how to accumulate merit in order to be reborn in a life where they could meet and mary again.
- clinging and attachment are two of the "three poisons" in Buddhism. Stopping to cling to things and get attached to them is a big portion of the goal of Buddhism. This is why most teachers repeat to "let go, let go, let go". This includes letting go of concepts (such as the "three poisons") or attachment to experiences (such as calm born from meditation). This can be confusing. A Theravada Abbot named Thannisaro Bikkhu has an interesting twist: he compare the path to a ladder. Obviously, once you are at the top, you should let go of the ladder. But on your way up, you need to cling to the steps of the ladder, otherwise you fall. So he advocates "skillful clinging": cling to the teachings, cling to meditative experiences, get attached to them, this is fine. This will give you the motivation to practice and progress. Just be ready to identify when this is not useful anymore, when you can let go of that step of the ladder to reach for the next.
The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path. Part of the misunderstanding might be that one fails to see that one is not at the point of understanding that allows to actually get what is expressed. This kind of participates in the beauty of learning and teaching, but also means that one will likely never really understand deeply anything anyone communicates to us. We are just left to experiment on our side, and see if what we understand kind of fits the imperfect descriptions from others, and use those to inform back our search.
> The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path.
well said, i think this applies to meditation too. Often people get into debates about what meditation actually is, as if there was one perfect answer, but the reality is that meditation can be different things depending on an individual's skill and their path.
One almost paranormal ability some seasoned spiritual teachers have is pointing at things that are happening in your experience, i.e. something is described and that phenomenon is experienced directly. I have experienced this so-called transmission not only in the Buddhist context, but also with qigong masters and with Hindu teachers.
I've experienced what I believe is a very minor form of this in music lessons, where a teacher would say some phrase or metaphor and it'd click and suddenly I'm able to move a drumstick better. I know that wouldn't happen if there wasn't direct interaction with someone.
I always liked the image of the finger pointing to the moon: "The teaching is merely a vehicle to describe the truth. Don’t mistake it for the truth itself. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. The finger is needed to know where to look for the moon, but if you mistake the finger for the moon itself, you will never know the real moon."
This does not mean that therapists offering guidance or following a particular framework are chalatans, but it is an encouragement to avoid, as much as possible, to hammer definitions on phenomena too hard. Those frameworks exist, at least in part, because they have proven useful to some people, but none of them is "the answer".
I think this is in fact one of the main functions of art, to "translate" your inner journey into characters and in the process you give a sort of mirror for an audience to reflect on. You're not telling them what to do, but providing a map.
With a compelling narrative it becomes more palatable, and realizations can feel your own, which is a big contributor to taking action.
It's kind of funny how people go through most of their life trying to rationalize going one way or the another, thinking they finally find the right way but then realizing this way has it's own problems too.
I call it the yin-yang problem for myself. I am absolutely certain people had this concept a lot earlier than the Chinese and all over the world too. But yin-yang is simple for me to remember, especially when I fall into the trap myself.
From my early teens to now in my mid forties I have been trying to find the right balance between: 1) having strong values/principles, not accepting people or at least people's behaviors that I consider below my standards and 2) not being a fucking holier-than-though for whom nobody and nothing is good enough. And this is not a purely intellectual pursuit either, I have been burned by going either direction in ways that impacted my quality of life.
Religion and philosophy has handled this a long time ago. But my upbringing and education have been completely secular. Religion and philosophy where laughed at and turned into the straw man variants of "yeah, right, there's an old guy with a beard on a cloud". And now, no matter how hard I try to forcefully inject yin-yang into my rational mind it doesn't take roots. I think reason is not a good soil for it. And think it's way to late to incorporate it into other parts of my personality.
I said it's funny because, like in the medium post, you find out you need yin-yang to learn yin-yang. And because going with a complete rational and secular education I am of course far from the balance line. Fucking yin-yang, the original catch-22 which keeps fucking me up.
> no matter how hard I try to forcefully inject yin-yang into my rational mind it doesn't take roots
One thing to keep in mind is that it does not have to take root in the rational mind. One of the core principles of certain spiritual traditions is that we aren't our rational mind. The rational mind was added at some point during the evolution of the human brain, maybe residing in the pre-frontal cortex.
The classical idea is that the ego-mind assumes (or insists) that it is the core of your self. But in reality your ego was added to the self as a subordinate. Meditation practice is in part a humbling of the ego mind, a reminder that you can and will continue to exist when the rational mind is silenced.
Have you taken psychedelics? Not to be that guy, but it’s good fertilizer for the mind.
I feel my brain has been permanently much more accepting of non-rational (note: not irrational) modes of thinking since having a psychedelic experience.
Very little once. But I've been around people who do regularly. And I agree they make you accept non rational thoughts, problem is, what exactly you accept. I've seen examples where people accepted quite bad things because of various drugs.
People accept quite bad things due to pure reason, too. The filter of reason should not be the one overseeing everything else, but that of wisdom. Both mystic experiences (an umbrella under which psychedlic experiences fall under) and reason should be submitted to a larger view of the world.
Actually, I do not think that a strong secular education makes it more difficult to achieve your two goals than a strict religious education. Just pointing at the fact that one of the extremes you want to avoid is framed with religious vocabulary (holier) kind of shows that religion is no antidote to the extremes (as one saw quite a lot in history).
One of the main things I practiced in the last years is to increase my "ontological flexibility", both by rational consideration of the limitations of my mental models, and by actual meditative practice of developing different "ways of looking", including theistic and animist ones. What this kind of practice does is (i) to reduce unhelpful attachment to fixed views (because I now experience a few of them, incompatible with each other but internally consistent, in a regular basis), and (ii) to open to a range of beauty that I did not suspected, and which is hard to put into words (and even harder to not make sound super cheesy). I am mostly following this kind of teachings, though I read texts from religious thinkers of every religion and time in history: https://hermesamara.org/teachings
What I wonder, though, is how much influence this had on my behavior. Even if my experie ce changed quite a lot, it could be little, as related in this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/21/the-pnse-paper/
I'll take a stab and say most of this community isn't perfectionist but more efficiency-ists.
While it's easy to lump them together, the difference in end goals tend to be absolute mastery vs maximizing use of time.
But the similarities between the two above is as old as time, the comparison vs others and the acceptance of ones self is critical to happiness/joy. I myself could use some recovery.
I have ADHD and though I love having a tidy home I struggle to make it happen. Still, I find chores to be a low stakes daily dojo to practice prioritization, executive function lol, "good enough" nonjudgemental thinking and all those values.
Two books helped me greatly and they both call out the exact distinction between perfection and efficiency you do. Consciously giving up on "efficiency" has helped me finish a lot of projects I otherwise would have put off for far too long!
The books are "How to Manage Your Home Without Losing Your Mind" by Dana White for ADHD folks, "How to Keep House While Drowning" by KC Davis for when life is f'ed. Heartily recommend both.
As a young guy who moved on their own after a relatively sheltered life in February, who suffers from an ADHD adjacent condition (Narcolepsy) I've found a lot of help from ADHD resources. I'll check out these books next
> I'll take a stab and say most of this community isn't perfectionist but more efficiency-ists.
I know everyone loves to hate MBTI, but I’ll translate to “most of this community is INTJ rather than INTP” because it seems so apt. We did an informal poll at the large tech company I worked at once and I think 70% of the software engineers were INTJ, 20% were INTP, and the rest were something else. So there is at least some predictive value to the test.
But I agree there is definitely a big difference between perfectionists and efficiency-ists. I am a strong perfectionist which leads to problems getting things done on time because I want them done correctly and as accurately as possible. The efficiency-ists get annoyed that the work takes so long, but then again I get annoyed that their approach is riddled with flaws. They view it as a necessary optimization within strict time constraints; I tend to view it as “incorrect and likely to come back to bite you later”.
This is a window into a fascinating world. I followed some of the links from the blog author. You end up in a world of spirituality with a whole bunch of jargon that is unfamiliar to me. But clearly, this is a modern spirituality untethered from the traditions of religion, or even the baggage of traditional spirituality.
What strikes me the most is that these people don't see themselves as priests, shamans or spiritual guides. But rather they see themselves as entrepreneurs and life coaches. It is like an old cynicism is gone and it is replaced with unfettered embrace of capitalism. Every article ends with calls to action: join my substack, join my patreon, sign up for my next workshop, check out my book, enroll in my online course, check out my podcast. Followers are rebranded as "clients".
Frankly I'm surprised, even impressed, that HN is open to this kind of thing. It is like when people are just upfront about the situation, that they will accept payment to help you with your spiritual needs, the reality of the transactional nature of the arrangement is clearly defined. Services exchanged for currency. No misdirection behind healing crystals. No God demanding devotion. Simply optimization of mental, emotional and physical well-being through the addition of spiritual advice.
This is funny, I come from a different angle and see almost the opposite of what you see (being overly caricatural on purpose):
- where you see the dropping of an old cynicism, I see a lot of capitalist cynicism: where spiritual masters would spend years in prayer and meditation before teaching for free and providing help to all, we now have "life coaches" who ask absurd prices to guide you, because they had a "breakthrough" after two months of psychotherapy
- where you see modern spirituality without the traditions of religion, I see the form of religion (groups organized around a particular dogma, with churches organized around trademarked psychotherapeutic methods) without spirituality
Spirituality and mysticism are all about metaphysics: we got physics to an absolutely awe inspiring level of sophistication, but we still pretty much ignore completely what consciousness is (and we might forever). Spirituality is, according to me, entering into that mystery and poking at it. I personally think metaphysics is an essential part of meaning making, and as such of well being. But this means that I need to be able to discuss it with someone who cares about it, not someone who just sees it as a story that helps holding it together.
I wouldn't disagree with you. That is why I said I was surprised to see HN not tearing this kind of article to shreds.
I could discuss this for hours, days, weeks or months. So being brief and concise is not easy.
> Spirituality is, according to me, entering into that mystery and poking at it.
Yes, and we're seeing people who would normally turn away from this embrace it within a new context. Few here are reading the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita/Upanishads, etc. In some sense, those old religions are dead and rotting. But their ideas are clearly present in this new crop of spiritual-adjacent life-coaching businesses. It is like a new forest growing in the ashes of the one that just burned down.
It is almost like a new safe-space to encounter these ideas is being discovered. It is fine to recognize that it isn't as fully developed as the forest that just burned down, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the new saplings we are seeing sprout up.
The author essentially goes on to abstract away each thing included in a circle. Take a car or a computer or even an essay. It does take knowing what makes the thing up, which is the exercise.
When done completely, unabstraction leaves you with nothing in the circle. Everything can be abstracted away.
In the case of "I" I make another circle around everything I moved outside the original circle and label is "own". It's what I am responsible for and what I will own up to. I own my mood, my health, the well being of my loved ones, my skills, etc. Then everything outside even that? Should not bother you at all.
But on a day to day basis, you can really only do one thing in any given moment. So remapping the "things" that make up "I" is handy, but most of the day most of it is completely irrelevant. That's an important realization also. If I'm writing this here, my "imperfections" should not be on my mind, and will not be.
I also talk to clients about being better than perfect, because perfect doesn't exist anyway. When doing fulfillment, errors do happen. Even amazon ships the wrong item from time to time. So perfection is impossible. But what if you owned up to your mistakes and engaged your customer and gave them more of what they wanted? They feel the attention, the appreciation, and a deeper connection with you and your service. That's better than perfect.
Fault tolerance doesn't have to just make up for a negative. It can go beyond and provide positives that you otherwise would not give.
A purely analytic objective statement about one thing the Bible kind of gets right: God loves you for who you are. Just think of how pragmatic that is. It prevents us from wasting our time murdering our village of weirdos, as per the article. Of course, historically, humans are known to murder the weirdos in our villages, so that's kind of ironic.
OCPD is quite different from the similarly-named Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), in part because people with OCPD tend to not see their obsessive thoughts and behavior as a problem, even when they are sabotaging their lives.
Anyways, this is not a critic to the author as such, just a recognition of the phenomenon. I am actually tempted to bring in my own words there, in case my particular reformulation can help someone. I am familiar with the kind of "vision" (for the lack of a better term) the author describes, and they can be extremely healing. However, I think it is a mistake to overinterpret those: oh, ok, this village is actually the set of my personality traits, and I need to show them love to integrate them and blabla... I mean, it can be a valid interpretation, but in my experience it is not useful. Much better is to develop a sense of what feels useful in the moment, and let the image develop on its own agenda. It feels like it would fit to kneel and ask for foregiveness? Try it. Or maybe what feels good it to let the Smurf Army crawl under your skin and break you to pieces. Let it happen. But most often than not, trying too hard to interpret what is happening (or worse, what is "right" or "wrong") according to some theory just gets in the way.
Good luck to all.
When you boil down a complex spiritual solution like this to one phrase, "accept yourself" seems to be correct. But someone who hasn't gotten there yet can't "un-boil" the solution to make it work for them. The actual solution is probably very specific to that person, and nebulous to the point where they can't put it into actionable words even when they do figure it out.
Example: "you must have good scores at school else you'll have no future" is repeated as "you should have good scores because learning broadens your horizons and helps you to grow"
It boils down to the same thing, but, hopefully, the pressure is weaker.
Same thing in philosophy. Very loos interpretation, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Wittgenstein. You need language to communicate, but it is flawed and can't really communicate what you want, but language is all you have, but when the other person does eventually understand, they realize how incomplete the language description was.
- in the Pali Canon (the oldest recollection of "discourses" attributed to the Buddha), the Buddha teaches very different things to different people. There are very technical suttas about advanced meditation practices for monks, but there are also suttas that are very down to earth and centered on "earthly" concerns. There is for instance a touching one where the Buddha teaches to an old couple how to accumulate merit in order to be reborn in a life where they could meet and mary again. - clinging and attachment are two of the "three poisons" in Buddhism. Stopping to cling to things and get attached to them is a big portion of the goal of Buddhism. This is why most teachers repeat to "let go, let go, let go". This includes letting go of concepts (such as the "three poisons") or attachment to experiences (such as calm born from meditation). This can be confusing. A Theravada Abbot named Thannisaro Bikkhu has an interesting twist: he compare the path to a ladder. Obviously, once you are at the top, you should let go of the ladder. But on your way up, you need to cling to the steps of the ladder, otherwise you fall. So he advocates "skillful clinging": cling to the teachings, cling to meditative experiences, get attached to them, this is fine. This will give you the motivation to practice and progress. Just be ready to identify when this is not useful anymore, when you can let go of that step of the ladder to reach for the next.
The main take away is that teachings, in particular in psychology or spirituality, are aimed at persons who are at a particular position on a path. Part of the misunderstanding might be that one fails to see that one is not at the point of understanding that allows to actually get what is expressed. This kind of participates in the beauty of learning and teaching, but also means that one will likely never really understand deeply anything anyone communicates to us. We are just left to experiment on our side, and see if what we understand kind of fits the imperfect descriptions from others, and use those to inform back our search.
well said, i think this applies to meditation too. Often people get into debates about what meditation actually is, as if there was one perfect answer, but the reality is that meditation can be different things depending on an individual's skill and their path.
This does not mean that therapists offering guidance or following a particular framework are chalatans, but it is an encouragement to avoid, as much as possible, to hammer definitions on phenomena too hard. Those frameworks exist, at least in part, because they have proven useful to some people, but none of them is "the answer".
With a compelling narrative it becomes more palatable, and realizations can feel your own, which is a big contributor to taking action.
I call it the yin-yang problem for myself. I am absolutely certain people had this concept a lot earlier than the Chinese and all over the world too. But yin-yang is simple for me to remember, especially when I fall into the trap myself.
From my early teens to now in my mid forties I have been trying to find the right balance between: 1) having strong values/principles, not accepting people or at least people's behaviors that I consider below my standards and 2) not being a fucking holier-than-though for whom nobody and nothing is good enough. And this is not a purely intellectual pursuit either, I have been burned by going either direction in ways that impacted my quality of life.
Religion and philosophy has handled this a long time ago. But my upbringing and education have been completely secular. Religion and philosophy where laughed at and turned into the straw man variants of "yeah, right, there's an old guy with a beard on a cloud". And now, no matter how hard I try to forcefully inject yin-yang into my rational mind it doesn't take roots. I think reason is not a good soil for it. And think it's way to late to incorporate it into other parts of my personality.
I said it's funny because, like in the medium post, you find out you need yin-yang to learn yin-yang. And because going with a complete rational and secular education I am of course far from the balance line. Fucking yin-yang, the original catch-22 which keeps fucking me up.
One thing to keep in mind is that it does not have to take root in the rational mind. One of the core principles of certain spiritual traditions is that we aren't our rational mind. The rational mind was added at some point during the evolution of the human brain, maybe residing in the pre-frontal cortex.
The classical idea is that the ego-mind assumes (or insists) that it is the core of your self. But in reality your ego was added to the self as a subordinate. Meditation practice is in part a humbling of the ego mind, a reminder that you can and will continue to exist when the rational mind is silenced.
Have you taken psychedelics? Not to be that guy, but it’s good fertilizer for the mind.
I feel my brain has been permanently much more accepting of non-rational (note: not irrational) modes of thinking since having a psychedelic experience.
One of the main things I practiced in the last years is to increase my "ontological flexibility", both by rational consideration of the limitations of my mental models, and by actual meditative practice of developing different "ways of looking", including theistic and animist ones. What this kind of practice does is (i) to reduce unhelpful attachment to fixed views (because I now experience a few of them, incompatible with each other but internally consistent, in a regular basis), and (ii) to open to a range of beauty that I did not suspected, and which is hard to put into words (and even harder to not make sound super cheesy). I am mostly following this kind of teachings, though I read texts from religious thinkers of every religion and time in history: https://hermesamara.org/teachings
What I wonder, though, is how much influence this had on my behavior. Even if my experie ce changed quite a lot, it could be little, as related in this article: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/21/the-pnse-paper/
While it's easy to lump them together, the difference in end goals tend to be absolute mastery vs maximizing use of time.
But the similarities between the two above is as old as time, the comparison vs others and the acceptance of ones self is critical to happiness/joy. I myself could use some recovery.
Two books helped me greatly and they both call out the exact distinction between perfection and efficiency you do. Consciously giving up on "efficiency" has helped me finish a lot of projects I otherwise would have put off for far too long!
The books are "How to Manage Your Home Without Losing Your Mind" by Dana White for ADHD folks, "How to Keep House While Drowning" by KC Davis for when life is f'ed. Heartily recommend both.
> nonjudgemental thinking
with
acceptance?
[edit]
Two books that helped me:
https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/0425269973/
https://www.amazon.com/-/en/dp/B08775GG3K/
I know everyone loves to hate MBTI, but I’ll translate to “most of this community is INTJ rather than INTP” because it seems so apt. We did an informal poll at the large tech company I worked at once and I think 70% of the software engineers were INTJ, 20% were INTP, and the rest were something else. So there is at least some predictive value to the test.
But I agree there is definitely a big difference between perfectionists and efficiency-ists. I am a strong perfectionist which leads to problems getting things done on time because I want them done correctly and as accurately as possible. The efficiency-ists get annoyed that the work takes so long, but then again I get annoyed that their approach is riddled with flaws. They view it as a necessary optimization within strict time constraints; I tend to view it as “incorrect and likely to come back to bite you later”.
What strikes me the most is that these people don't see themselves as priests, shamans or spiritual guides. But rather they see themselves as entrepreneurs and life coaches. It is like an old cynicism is gone and it is replaced with unfettered embrace of capitalism. Every article ends with calls to action: join my substack, join my patreon, sign up for my next workshop, check out my book, enroll in my online course, check out my podcast. Followers are rebranded as "clients".
Frankly I'm surprised, even impressed, that HN is open to this kind of thing. It is like when people are just upfront about the situation, that they will accept payment to help you with your spiritual needs, the reality of the transactional nature of the arrangement is clearly defined. Services exchanged for currency. No misdirection behind healing crystals. No God demanding devotion. Simply optimization of mental, emotional and physical well-being through the addition of spiritual advice.
- where you see the dropping of an old cynicism, I see a lot of capitalist cynicism: where spiritual masters would spend years in prayer and meditation before teaching for free and providing help to all, we now have "life coaches" who ask absurd prices to guide you, because they had a "breakthrough" after two months of psychotherapy
- where you see modern spirituality without the traditions of religion, I see the form of religion (groups organized around a particular dogma, with churches organized around trademarked psychotherapeutic methods) without spirituality
Spirituality and mysticism are all about metaphysics: we got physics to an absolutely awe inspiring level of sophistication, but we still pretty much ignore completely what consciousness is (and we might forever). Spirituality is, according to me, entering into that mystery and poking at it. I personally think metaphysics is an essential part of meaning making, and as such of well being. But this means that I need to be able to discuss it with someone who cares about it, not someone who just sees it as a story that helps holding it together.
I could discuss this for hours, days, weeks or months. So being brief and concise is not easy.
> Spirituality is, according to me, entering into that mystery and poking at it.
Yes, and we're seeing people who would normally turn away from this embrace it within a new context. Few here are reading the Bible, or the Bhagavad Gita/Upanishads, etc. In some sense, those old religions are dead and rotting. But their ideas are clearly present in this new crop of spiritual-adjacent life-coaching businesses. It is like a new forest growing in the ashes of the one that just burned down.
It is almost like a new safe-space to encounter these ideas is being discovered. It is fine to recognize that it isn't as fully developed as the forest that just burned down, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the new saplings we are seeing sprout up.
Funnily enough I sometimes described my inner chaos as a bunch of kids I have to take care of, that's what it reminded me of.
I especially love the closing remarks. What else is there to do? Let's do this. :)
When done completely, unabstraction leaves you with nothing in the circle. Everything can be abstracted away.
In the case of "I" I make another circle around everything I moved outside the original circle and label is "own". It's what I am responsible for and what I will own up to. I own my mood, my health, the well being of my loved ones, my skills, etc. Then everything outside even that? Should not bother you at all.
But on a day to day basis, you can really only do one thing in any given moment. So remapping the "things" that make up "I" is handy, but most of the day most of it is completely irrelevant. That's an important realization also. If I'm writing this here, my "imperfections" should not be on my mind, and will not be.
I also talk to clients about being better than perfect, because perfect doesn't exist anyway. When doing fulfillment, errors do happen. Even amazon ships the wrong item from time to time. So perfection is impossible. But what if you owned up to your mistakes and engaged your customer and gave them more of what they wanted? They feel the attention, the appreciation, and a deeper connection with you and your service. That's better than perfect.
Fault tolerance doesn't have to just make up for a negative. It can go beyond and provide positives that you otherwise would not give.
A purely analytic objective statement about one thing the Bible kind of gets right: God loves you for who you are. Just think of how pragmatic that is. It prevents us from wasting our time murdering our village of weirdos, as per the article. Of course, historically, humans are known to murder the weirdos in our villages, so that's kind of ironic.
OCPD is quite different from the similarly-named Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), in part because people with OCPD tend to not see their obsessive thoughts and behavior as a problem, even when they are sabotaging their lives.