Get Everything Done

Rather than derail the "Forum Issues" thread, I thought I'd pick up on what somebody posted there. It was suggested that time management systems don't solve issues like loneliness. I think that's true.

AutoFocus and such helps solve issues of getting everything done, forgetting, being overwhelmed with stuff, losing balance by spending too much time on some things to the lack of others.

I think it doesn't help set priorities, change attitudes, develop character, etc. But if your problem is being too distracted to look at such issues, AF can help solve the distracted part. Then you are empowered to work on whatever interests you.

David Allen wrote that he was able to trim his backyard trees because his GTD system gave him a level of comfort that his life wouldn't fall apart if he did that instead of what was in the system. AF has the same kind of effect except typically you would have tree trimming (or other joyous activity) on your list.

I think I have mentioned this a dozen times: the intersection of AF with getting honest with reality (that includes yourself and others around you).

We can rehash this subject in a more formal matter, if you would like.

What does "getting honest" buy you in this context? I suggest it's only that you neither over-promise nor over-commit, with exactly the benefits I posted above. Do you think there's more value than that?

Alan, if you truly want to have a dialog OK. I will take the time for a thoughtful reply. I have done so before, but am happy to do so again.

I will probably not be able to contribute something of that order until Saturday or Sunday. (Depending on my friend's (who just had a heart attack this week) health.

"If you truly want"... Of course.

(Off topic:) Perhaps it's a weakness of mine (the S of ISTJ?) that I always take what's written or said at face value. Unless a smiley is applied, I would never assume anything was anything less than earnest. I'd only conclude otherwise if I the honest interpretation makes no sense, and I write accordingly.

I gather from some of your writing (including the above query) that you frequently are not in earnest ("being ironic"?), which I find disconcerting. How can I know what you mean if it's other than what you say?
(Back on topic:)
Yes I am interested in all ideas about what thought tools are good for change.

Alan,

Part of the value in pulling someone's leg once in a while is that it gets them to think. If you know something is serious you begin to analyze in your normal analytical way. If you don't know, then you have to look at it from different perspectives to try to figure out its intent just to get started on it. That gets you out of your thinking box.

So embrace the confusion. The start of every worthwhile thought is confusion. You can't begin to learn until you are sufficiently confused.

Beyond that, the real point of life is to enjoy it.

To get back to the orignal point - my view is that AF (or DIT or DWM) gives you the opportunity to manage your time management issues. This in turn allows you some 'head space' to sort out any other issues you want to, or just spend time on things that lift your spirit.

In that sense it can change your life - if you are bogged down wtih tasks and can't see the wood for the trees it can be a very miserable place to be - believe me I know.

Alan,

OK, let's make it a dialog. But let's not get Socratic. Nothing wrong with kinda discourse, but it is best suited to the Agora.

RE: Irony. Sometimes irony is the only way of being earnest. As Standing noted, life tosses us aporia (plural quickly people), life itself is an aporia. Uh oh . . . calm down Socrates.

To answer your question directly I am frequently ironic (as a method of truth and honesty, irony gets a bad rap nowadays). But I will avoid all attempt at humor and irony in this thread.

I also will be honest and this means being personally disclosive. Nothing of value in these kinda discussions happens over hypotheticals. In other words, the adults are talking here.

I am wrapping up at work and heading to a Cardiac Care Unit for most of the night.

I really believe that this 'Norman' person is out to hijack every single thread with his meaningless drivel.

Please someone ban him from this forum before he totally destroys it for everyone.

Gary F:

If you really have that much of a issue with Norman (which I see primarily as your personal problem, not a general problem that threatens the fabric of this forum, I like Norman's style), you can always just censor him away the script mentioned in this thread: http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1027108

Someone should update it so we can ban everyone that doesn't share our point of view. ;-)

Or, he could always hold is breath until he turns blue.

>>AutoFocus and such helps solve issues of getting everything done, forgetting, being overwhelmed with stuff, losing balance by spending too much time on some things to the lack of others.

I think it doesn't help set priorities, change attitudes, develop character, etc. <<

Hey Alan,

I don't agree with your assessment above. I got slightly more overwhelmed with AF because I was seeing too much of the "whole picture" and way too many tasks if I didn't consciously limit them and many have said that the growing list made them more overwhelmed. I probably gained balance by spending too much time on stuff that didn't really matter to me (like cleaning). But I hear that balance is over-rated and am coming to see that that's true to an extent.

I think it does help to set priorities for many. When the rubber meets the road and you have 10 tasks that come up (in DWM or AF3) for dismissal and not enough time to do them all, you will be pushed to set your priorities. That also develops character (self-discipline) too because you will push yourself to work on things in order to "save" them that you would otherwise just let go or reschedule.

Back to the previously scheduled commercial break.

Ben and 'Marms,
Thank you for the great chuckles. While it's true that some people are put off by the current flavor of this forum, many others would be put off if it was all business. That being said, I noticed how energizing it seemed to be for people when Simon and Tuck asked for suggestions. Those of you who want to stay on topic, please make similar posts and many topical goodies will surely come your way. If you can't think of any topical posts, why might that be?

Jacqueline,

I could not agree more about priorities. The think is that in GED Mark goes on to define priorities in his own way. Bascially he says that you should not "prioritize" but "choose". Of course, that is just quibbling over words, IMO. "Choice" IS "priority" ... or at least reflective of it. His point is well taken, however, that the right way to deal with this issue is to make sure you clear your life of unwanted "noise" (things you HAVE to do that are not really important", so that you have enough time to do everything you WANT to do ... then no choice is necessary.

If only ;-)

Ben:

"http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1027108"

Good stuff and shows what happens when people have a decent sense of humor.

Alan:

"It was suggested that time management systems don't solve issues like loneliness."

"I think it doesn't help set priorities, change attitudes, develop character, etc. But if your problem is being too distracted to look at such issues, AF can help solve the distracted part. Then you are empowered to work on whatever interests you."

There is a lot of stuff loaded into these sentences. So let's try to start simply and progress in a dialog manner. Otherwise, I think it could become easy to end up just gazing at each other's navel.

At any time you find that there is no more value to the dialog please say so. I would rather you be direct than nice.

Let's start:

I do not think AF is a "time management system". I once wrote something like, "AF helps me understand what things the world needs help with". A few commented on the phrase positively (including Mark, if that matters here) and asked for elaboration. The best elaboration would be reading _The Handbook for Constructive Living_. This is impractical, so I will try to fill out what this means as we go along.

I do not think AF is a "time management system". I think in general we all know what "time management systems" are. So let's not quibble over definitions (something I like to do).

It is called AutoFocus. Focus on what? What needs doing.

Would you agree that AF would be better characterized in general as a tool for helping us to focus on what needs doing rather than managing our time?

That might be a mouth full and too contentious yet. Would you agree that AF is more about "doing" than "time"?

Jacqueline,
"I think it does help to set priorities for many. When the rubber meets the road and you have 10 tasks that come up (in DWM or AF3) for dismissal and not enough time to do them all, you will be pushed to set your priorities. That also develops character (self-discipline) too because you will push yourself to work on things in order to "save" them that you would otherwise just let go or reschedule."

This is true, but only a start. Thinking about priorities is NOT the same thing as prioritizing tasks or choosing which thing to do. Such thinking does come into play then, but I believe it's when you have your todos "under control" that the real thought begins: Are the things on my list achieving what they ought? Should I look for new activities? Shall I drop more? Are there better ways to spend my time?

I'm talking about deliberate life changing thought. AF doesn't bring that but it empowers you to bring it on yourself if you choose.

Thanks Norman. Reading your post several times over I believe its constructive content is chiefly "AF is not a time management system. AF focuses more on doing than on time". That's not a very contentious statement, so hope we can pick up the pace of dialogue lest we be here until June.

To your point: Of course no one can manage time. We only manage what we do within our allotted time, and all good "time management" systems are about doing. "Time management" thus means "managing what we do with our time".

"AF helps us (a) focus on what needs doing rather than (b) managing our time." AF doesn't even mention time, so AF certainly is more about (a). But it has (b) as an emergent property because people naturally convert awareness into choice into action. (Which makes it a "time management system")

To summarize my original argument: AF helps achieve well-managed time, and this enables thoughts about "change" to take root. You could argue that AF helps achieve "awareness of what needs doing" and that enables thoughts. I might be agreeable to that.

Mark,

Thank you for clarifying. I thought I had said pretty much the same thing but apparently not so much ;-) In any case, your own words serve better to describe your own position.

I did not convey, well enough, that I agree with you about the idea of commitments. That certainly must come first. You make that point clearly in the book. And I go further to hold that one cannot make that cut before understanding one's goals. And one can't get there before understanding one's values. I see it as an in depth process one must deal with thoughtfully in order to get it all worked out. Values -> Goals -> Commitments -> Tasks. Only then can one decide what one will actually work on today. I doubt we disagree much there. Where we seem to approach it differently, and thus the use of my term "quibble" (sorry about any harshness there) is that I see that prioritization starts with values. It then applies also to goals. Finally it applies to commitments and then, by extension, tasks.

My values tend to come pre-prioritized. IOW, I don't choose the priority, it is kind of "just there". Much of it is personality ... mostly "installed" by my environment when I was a child. I can probably change it if I'm not happy with it ... but I choose not to go there. I'm pretty happy the way I have myself aligned with my universe. ;-) Most of the conscious and explicit reordering of values took place when I was in my teens and 20's. However, I do prioritize my goals.

I do that for a number of reasons. The most obvious is timing. Goals pertaining to my vacation in June take precedence over those pertaining to my end of year financial planning in November, for example. Another reason is that some goals are simply more important to me.

Generally, I think commitment follows goals. I see "commitment" more as an allocation of time to goals so clearly priority derives from those goals. I would think my commitments would be out of "alignment" with my goals should I load up with spending time with friends when I had a doctoral dissertation to complete, for example. So I'd either drop the visits or decide to bag the dissertation and become a hobo or something. It does not so much matter so long as there is alignment.

I still feel, however, that there are a number of reasons that one has to assign priority at the task level. If I had the whole day to do only two things, I'd still want to understand which of those is the more important. All other things being equal, I'd start on that one first because it is just possible (especially with some of the projects I undertake) that the first thing could take all day and I'd never get to the second ... even though I might have thought I could.

Now I anticipate your response that the way to avoid that is to work little and often bursts. But I simply don't work that way for big tasks. My mind does not do well with being jerked around and I personally have a hell of a lot of mental overhead when I switch tasks. (In computer jargon I'm subject to "thrashing" -- where the overhead can exceed the real work.) I do fine with "bursts" when it comes to cleaning house, washing dishes, doing laundry ... all of those relatively low overhead tasks. (BTW, I found it very interesting to read the evolution of your system in the GED book ... I'm not sure I told you that. The idea of the rotating task list was so much more clearly developed in GED and makes a whole lot of sense expressed as you did there. As fully (?) developed in AFs 1-N, maybe less so.) But when it comes to reading a book like GED, I sit for a while, make notes, suss out the meaning of things, go back when I feel something contradicts something previously written, etc. Then I quit and move on to something else. I let it simmer in my subconscious. A day later I'll come back and figure out where you got it wrong ;-) Or I did ;-)

But my point is that I simply don't believe that if I'm going to spend the $ for your book that I'm going to waste my time by "thrashing". I'm going to focus on it and get everything from it that I can. (I actually tried your rotating bookshelf idea and it was a dismal failure for me. When I pick up a book, I do so because I want to work on that book and I want to stick with it. I'm not apt to switch from philosophy to basket weaving and back. ;-) The net of it is that I'm going to decide to read your book on Tuesday, for example, as well as the one on basket weaving but that GED is of a higher priority to me than learning how to weave baskets ... so it has a higher priority for me because, as shown by my experience, time and time again, it will take me all day to satisfactorily digest GED and I won't have the time left over for my baskets.

I'm not sure I've made any dent in your opinion of this .. but at least I've tried to be as clear as possible about what I'm saying.

"Values -> Goals -> Commitments -> Tasks" sounds like what Covey (whom you despise) would say. In practice I think that's often backwards.

It could take a very long time to clarify exactly what my goals are, as my house deteriorates around me. I think it's more practical to start with tasks, and where those cause trouble to re-evaluate my commitments to eliminate tasks. Where I have too many commitments I go back to my still-nebulous goals and consider which commitments are leading anywhere and which to drop. Then I can go look at the goals I'm working towards and consider whether these goals truly meet my values and how I should adjust them.

But perhaps it's a matter of triage: Get on top of the urgent matters so you can set aside time to focus on values, goals, commitments.

Alan,

Triage: Yeah, that is so. What I outlined was how things actually work. We all have tasks and those tasks are either goal oriented or not (or a mixture, most likely). Our goals stem from our values. We either have identified those values or not. But they still exist.

As to that coming from Covey ... not so much. It hearkens back to Plato and that gang. I don't know how you'd nail down just who fist proposed which part of something so fundamental as values and goals. Certainly Covey acknowledges values and goals. What I don't like about Covey is his religious proselytizing. I don't need to join his church in order to manage my schedule ;-) But seriously, I don't think I need to see my life as having "roles" in order to make sense of it.

"Thanks Norman. Reading your post several times over I believe its constructive content is chiefly "AF is not a time management system. AF focuses more on doing than on time". That's not a very contentious statement, so hope we can pick up the pace of dialogue lest we be here until June."

Do you plan on not being here till June? Why do you ask specifically about June?

You asked a question. I have an answer. If I just write a lot of paragraphs, I don't think much will happen other than you will pick some sentences you like and other you somewhat like with small changes and point out others you don't like at all. The you will write a bunch of paragraphs to explain what you think.

Then a buncha other paragraphs will be written by us here and there on this thread and another and I don't think much will come of it other maybe a slight memory of the exchange and no understanding. I doubt many could articulate more than 10% of the answers other's have offered to the their questions in the past.

A lot of people think they want thoughtful conversation, well here it is. When you hold a minority position like I do, its is good to make one's positions clear and understandable If that is not what you want, we can stop.

I think AF can have a profound impact on one's character, priorities and you don't. So I doubt I am going to win you over in 500 words or less.

Strange, that I am criticized for "not being serious" then for "being serious".

If you want to continue:

"To your point: Of course no one can manage time. We only manage what we do within our allotted time, and all good "time management" systems are about doing. "Time management" thus means "managing what we do with our time". "

You added a lot of words to my question, I am not sure of your answer. But I am going to assume you do agree AF has more to do with "doing" than "time".

Btw, I think we should keep the language relatively simple. Talking about "emergent" properties could take us down a long unfruitful road of the sophist or philosopher.

I can stay here till whenever (this is why real dialog and not just people typing out a lot of words happens better face to face, people just don't have patience for it online).

It might interesting for us to hang in there, because eventually I will share why I think AF at its best does not strictly help us do this either:

"We only manage what we do"

AF can be used this way and I would agree with your original statements, but I think if AF is understood slightly differently and used in the way it is written out, it certainly can foster all the things you claimed it cannot and more.

But we have some more steps between here and there. Or we could be ironic about June.

Wow, lotsa words ;-) All I meant is there's a happy medium between making one point and laying out the entire essay. I see lots of words here, but nothing for me to discuss. Back on topic:

"I think if AF is understood slightly differently and used in the way it is written out, it certainly can foster all the things you claimed it cannot and more."

Okay please begin explaining how or why.

A relevant post from Mark, which I might at times reference:

http://www.markforster.net/blog/2009/7/29/making-choices-with-af.html

I don't want to explain. I want to discuss. This post from Mark will be helpful in the discussion. Especially, if we get far enough to concrete examples. I promise my examples will be racier than Mark's, in order to show the AF can help in exactly the areas you asking about.

Pardon the crappy sentences, been writing for at least nine hours today.

I've already read that post, thanks.

One thought that came to mind during a sermon today: It makes a difference what question you ask yourself as you scan the list. If you ask of each "Do I feel like doing this now?" you will do whatever you feel like doing. If you ask instead "Is this a valuable way to spend my time now?" something else will result. And for the Christians among us, you might ask "Would God want me doing this now?"

The above questions are just a start of a very deep subject. I get the notion that how one approaches your list makes a huge difference, and possibly this has something to do with what Norman is trying to communicate.

The substance is this: A list and a fixed system create a framework for thought. Perhaps you can use that framework to attach discipline to good effect.

Good feedback Mark. It was a thought I had, and I'm intuitively aware that these questions tend to cause trouble at some point because they are all too narrow. I still feel that mindset has a huge impact on what I choose to work on, and somehow this fact can be exploited.

Still wondering how Norman is thinking on the topic.

<< why a task may "stand out" ... may vary according to the time of day, the situation, the urgency ... >>

Mmm ... This is one of the "situation" I see as being different in orthodox paper DWM implementation and AdreasH's AutofocusAHK digital DWM implementation. On paper you're always aware of which closed/open lists a task is on that you are scanning. Even when you're doing a quick scan/flipping through the pages, you know which are before/near the "W" mark, which are before/near the "M" mark.

In the main AFAHK "Do" loop, AndreasH have included expiry dates of each task it offers to be executed. But dates does not easily "show situation" of the tasks as before the "W" mark, or before the "M" mark. I'm thinking of hacking my copy of AFAHK to show "W" or "M" for each task to be done, if AndreasH is away for much longer. Maybe even colourise those tasks differently for before "W" than for before "M".

I'm just trying to get the digital situation to be as close to paper situation for DWM. Do you think I'm on the right track, or bogged down in minutiae? ;-)

Mark:

"I'm not actually keen on asking yourself any question while scanning the list. There are all sorts of reasons why a task may "stand out" and these may vary according to the time of day, the situation, the urgency of certain projects, etc.

My own experience with asking the same question is that sooner or later I find that the question is producing resistance in my mind (and yes, I have tried all the ones you mention)."

Mark says more with fewer words than I do. I wanted to point this post out. It was this kinda thinking that convinced me to try AF in the first place. Although argument from authority is not necessarily persuasive, I think it is important to note my gratitude to Mark and that what I am going to explain about AF and how it works for me is not necessarily idiosyncratic. And frankly, most folks judging by their posts are doing it wrong.

Norman writes: "Although argument from authority is not necessarily persuasive, I think it is important to note my gratitude to Mark..."

Seconded! :) :) :) :)

OK, so we agree that in a general sense that AF is more about "doing" than "managing time".

OK, but doing what exactly? We say in general "things", OK. But what things?

Things which "stand out" in our lists. For the time being, lets leave what "standing out" could possibly mean and focus on what goes into our lists. I doubt there will disagreement. (If this seems tedious, it probably is, but necessary if the more contentious statements are to make any sense).

As a tactic, Mark suggests not starting by listing many things all at once, when beginning. OK. That caveat aside.

In virtue of what do we decide to put in the list? What occurs to us, naturally. Here however is a striking aspect of AF which has already been touched on: we put things which occur to us or "stand out" into the list. An empty tautology? Hardly.

In other systems, there are usually filters: feasibility, importance, relation to values, goal setting, etc. I think we can agree on this.

In AF, to use a hackneyed saying, we toss in everything *including* kitchen sink. Everything that might stand out. Things I don't want to do, think I want to do, things I think I should do, things I don't think I should have to do, etc.

This is key. Because here the ability for things to stand out later is already happening at the very moment we list them. To be sure, we are filtering things due to our particular relationship with the world, but nonetheless we put things in as they "stand out" to us.

This is the beginning of what is meant by "auto". In the very listing process, AF is already tempering the self aware calculative "I" which is often present in most other systems of "getting things done" or "time management". At the start of the list, what I refer to as the "world" is allowed to find its way onto the list with fewer of the filters most of us are accustomed to using explicitly to decide how and what we are going to do.

The above might seem trivially, but important to get to the strange locution that I believe AF "helps us discern what the world needs our help with getting done." This will speak to such things as values, discipline, etc. And also why most folks are not using AF when things like hacks, tweaks, etc. are introduced.

Norman, don't mean to interrupt - really - but also wanted your thoughts on this writing of Reynolds':

"Attention must be focused on reality. Reality is the proper teacher of life's lessons. Observation of reality results in information about what needs to be done (i.e., purposeful behavior). When what needs to be done isn't clear Constructive Living action can suggest only to do what is clear. That is part of the reason for the structured nature of Zen monasteries. One's situation, when properly structured, presents what needs doing in relatively routine and clear fashion so that attention can be invested in doing activities well. The simple and organized life reduces the attention necessary for deciding what needs doing.

The Constructive Living approach to the issue of knowing what needs doing includes the organization and simplification of Morita and Zen but also the moral investigation of Constructive Living reciprocity. Constructive Living reciprocity introspection helps us to discover, even in the most complex situation, what needs to be done. Constructive Living reciprocity provides a moral compass for determining what needs to be done. Then the Constructive Living action practice helps us become people who actually do it."

and this:

"The kind of patience that we aim for in Constructive Living may be called "productive" patience. It is based upon productive waiting, which means being active in another area while waiting for some desired result. It means keeping our eyes off the pot that hasn't yet boiled. It means allowing our friends and mates time to work through their own thoughts and feelings and not forcing them to deal with issues according to our own timetables, our own convenience. It means allowing the glue we call "time" to set completely before testing it.

Productive waiting means asserting ourselves when necessary, but then coolly evaluating the outcome of our efforts and deciding what needs to be done next. Just as important, productive waiting means going about other business and play, while the situation is ripening. It means turning away fully, involving ourselves wholeheartedly in some other pursuit, until the proper time comes to resume the attack on the problem. It means overcoming our obsessions with our own personal time constraints, our own concerns, and our own convenience.

By "our own convenience" here I am contrasting more than simply our own personal convenience with that of some other person. The world about us has a timetable of its own. Events ripen at their own pace."

Thanks in advance.

I like your mode of thinking here Norman. As you say, most of this is obvious, but most is not usually explicit. Verily, by making it explicit you have already challenged my thinking of how I'm doing things. I don't yet see how AF "helps us discern what the world needs our help with getting done."

Seeking internal resolution, and awaiting further external stimuli :-)

Jacqueline,

In a comic turn of the universe, I am going to say that is off-topic . . . but very much on-topic.

It is a topic that deserves its own thread. So if you would like to start one. That would be great. But first I am going to try to finish what is going on here. But some introductory comments certainly could be made. The next couple of days, I might have some significant time during the day at work to devote to writing.

And revisiting Reynolds and making explicit my thoughts about it is always helpful to me, if no one else.

So if you want to cut and paste that to another thread and list which source you are pulling that from, I would appreciate it. Reynolds writings differ at times, but that is the nature of things.

One effect of AF4 (and DWM) is to mix all variety of tasks, new and old, big and small together. Notice how rewritten tasks go the same place as new tasks, (although in DWM it takes several weeks for the new tasks to get to that place). This mixing seems to play into the autofocus effect Norman is talking about. By not presorting stuff, AutoFocus allows you to dynamically choose between urgent and important, big and small. Am I on track Norman?

I am tweaking AF4 in an attempt to make it better fit me. (So far not succeeding :-) Although I had followed AF4 pretty much as written (notwithstanding some nuances Norman is raising) for about 5 months, there were a couple effects of the system I didn't want.

Currently my altered system unbalances the mix of urgent little things and important big things, with the consequence that I get bogged down easily.
The description of automatic standing out helps clarify the problem.

FWIW, I evidently swallowed a shard of glass with a bit of curry I had tonight. So I am bit pre-occupied with the thought of being eviscerated from the inside out.

Not too terribly concerned, but distracted enough that my sleep debt (or the dying the from internal bleeding) tomorrow might inform how I spend my time at work.

I hope by this time tomorrow I will be able to give a report on the colon cleansing properties of glass versus psyllium husk powder.

You certainly live a colorful life, Norman. ;-)

Norman, from what I can gather from googling, you're not at much risk, but you really should get to the hospital A & E, rather than contemplating the situation. The world needs your help!

If you were to collapse in your cubicle at work tomorrow, your colleagues wouldn't know, because they're accustomed to you not replying to their emails.

And just in case these are the last words you ever read .... I'm very grateful for the wide perspective on AF that you've opened up above.

Chris

Thanks for the concern, but really glass is rather benign. The standard protocol is a conservative wait and see approach (if you begin bleeding from either end, go to the ER).

A friend is an ER doc and she acted as though it was not big deal, so I ain't concerned.

I also live in the most dangerous neighborhood in America. Already eight murders within a 1/2 mile of where I live this year. One recently within 200 yards. And the summer is yet upon us.

So yes, you all better tread carefully.

Tonight, I am going to try to speed up the glass evacuation with a plate of 16 penny nails.

> Already eight murders within a 1/2 mile of where I live this year. One recently within 200 yards.

They haven't identified you yet? But they're closing in.

Hey, where's your OFT markers? :-)

Hey, where's your OFT markers? :-)

STACK OVERFLOW

Speaking of overflows, and possibly skirting the boundaries of good taste, have you considered something on these lines, Norman? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8697728961740914069#

Dunno what's creepier, his schtick or his voice. I am leaning toward the latter.

Now now, Norman: we must learn to value differences.

Did you try the billiard ball cure for bringing back sharp objects?

Let's see if I can pick-up where I last left off post glass ingestion.

We agree that AF is more about doing. That AF tends to temper the calculative I more than other systems of doing. This tempering allow the things in the world stand out more to be put on our list with fewer *explicit* filters, or so if doing AF properly. Thus the "standing out" process actually begins in the very beginning of AF not as a later step in the process.

So we have our list of items which have caught our attention in the world. Regardless, of our stand on them or mood or inclination they are listed before us. What's the next step?

Caveat: I am not going to address things like drawing lines, etc. Since this different for each flavor of AF. I am trying to address the salient features shared by each AF. I cannot speak to DWM, frankly because no experience using it nor at the moment any inclination to do so, or so AF says.

So we have our list. We quickly scan the page. This quick scan gives a quick overview of what is going on in the world which has caught our attention and might require our help to get accomplished.

Perhaps some elaboration is needed here. I've tentatively established what I mean by the world. Those things no matter what on stance on them is which occur to us or "stand out".

(As point of interest, the etymology of "occur" is related to the contemporary use of the German "sich einfallen": something which falls into me, again the sense of this word in English carry this passive sense of the I and active sense of the "world".)

So the world stands out. I think we can agree to this. Stands out to what end? To suggest what might need our help in getting done. Why help? This might be controversial, but given the general tone of the board, I doubt it. Certainly nothing in this world happens solely in virtue of a single person, nor is it likely what happens remains solely dependent on a single person. Some might quibble here, but I doubt anything outside sophistry could be employed and would smack of a bit inauthenticity that would suggest otherwise.

The world needs help getting things done. Sometimes my help is what is needed or better yet called for or asked. The world as such will get along just fine without me. But my relationship with the world necessarily requires my participation. Another possible empty tautology, but I don't think so.

To repeat again: the things which need or ask for our help getting done in the world stand out or occur to us.

The quick scan brings our attention to these possibilities without much calculation, if one is practicing and has experience with AF. The page limit allows for this process to limited and thus useful. The world does not want us considering the infinite possibilities we believe might need our help. If you think this is the case, try it out. Put that into your AF list. When you think that is what the world wants. Work on it and see how long you spend, before you are quickly reminded of the folly of such a stand.

We scan the page getting a general sense of what might need our help to be done. Then start at the top (I am assuming this approach for illustration). And give each item a moment of pause to allow it to stand out. We don't calculate. We pause and allow the item to come forth or not. Then we go to the next.

Again, another method for reducing the importance of calculative I (it still informs what stands-out since it is part of the world, I am not arguing a dualism here, but I am also not arguing that a dualism cannot arise). We give a moment. To each item.

What other system suggests such a method? Allowing a moment of pause, nothing else, to let your dreams, desires, shoulds, should nots, fears, boredom, etc. the charity and space to solicit your help without considerable calculation? To temper the hubris and extremity of our often self-seeking calculative I with the kindness to allow our rich relationship with the world to speak to us, rather than we forcibly lecturing the world about its importance and necessity?

"rather than we forcibly lecturing the world about its importance and necessity?"

Poorly expressed. "its" meaning our own calculative plans and ideas about how things "should get done", how the world should be made in our own fantasies.