To Think About . . .

It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame. Oscar Wilde

 

 

 

My Latest Book

Product Details

Also available on Amazon.com, Amazon.fr, and other Amazons and bookshops worldwide! 

Search This Site
Log-in
Latest Comments
My Other Books

Product Details

Product Details

Product Details

The Pathway to Awesomeness

Click to order other recommended books.

Find Us on Facebook Badge

Discussion Forum > A more efficient and environment friendly notation system for AnyFocus

One characteristic of AnyFocus that disturbs me most is the huge waste of paper and time of the system. That of paper is obvious; that of time, due to re-writing every unfinished task and having to scan the lists for and backward through the notebook.

So I devised two notation systems that I want to share with you. The first one considers whether a task has been activated or not, as in classic AnyFocus. The second one considers the effort invested in the task in approximate time units, so that you can have an estimate of your effort at a glimpse.

I prefer the second one.

Given a tasks list x:

Cancel Insurance
Write Henry S.
Contribute to P & Y’s
Read Ultra Simple Gui
Photo Galleries
Wash Up
Buy Guillotine
Camera Manual
Wash Dishes
"War and Peace"

Instead of crossing over a task and re-entering it at the end of the list everytime it is activated, a bar is jotted at its side.

(*Note: becasue of limitations of the forum site the bars don't appear aligned, but they should be. Also, because the forum site does not allow HTML marking I used a check mark to denote finished tasks instead of strike trough).

5th pass:

Cancel Insurance ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
Write Henry S. ⎮
Contribute to P & Y’s ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
Read Ultra Simple Gui ⎮ ⎮
Photo Galleries
✓ Wash Up
✓ Buy Guillotine
Camera Manual ⎮ ⎮
⟳ Wash Dishes ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
⟳ "War and Peace" ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮

Notice that two tasks have been finished and two others are recurrent tasks.

Dismissal Rule:

If after x passes (your decision - I would suggest 10) a task has not been activated, it is highlighted for review.

Effort Estimation:

In this case, bars do not represent mere activation but time units (your decision - I would suggest units of 10 minutes or less each bar), so you can have in a glimpse an estimate of how much time you invested in each task:

5th pass:

24.3.11
Cancel Insurance ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
Write Henry S. ⎮
Contribute to P & Y’s ⎮ ⎮
Read Ultra Simple Gui ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
Photo Galleries
✓ Wash Up ⎮ ⎮
✓ Buy Guillotine ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
Camera Manual ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
⟳ Wash Dishes ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮
⟳ "War and Peace ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮ ⎮

Dismissal Rule:

Notice the date marked at the first entrance time of these tasks. If after x days (your decision / I would sugget 10) a task has not been activated, it is highlighted for review.

Let me know what you think.
March 24, 2011 at 18:51 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Marcelo,

When you say activated, do you mean worked on. I like the first one if I understand it correctly where you note when you work on something until it is done without rewriting it. However, after awhile your recurring tasks will be at the front of your book since they are not rewritten. Also glad to see reading the Ultra Simple Guide to Time Management is on the list LOL.

Gerry
March 24, 2011 at 19:26 | Registered CommenterGerry
Hi Gerry!
I'll get to it (the Guide) :)
Yes, you understand correctly. And yes, by activated I mean worked on. And of course you are
right about the recurring tasks - at some point I will have to rewrite them.
March 24, 2011 at 19:46 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Does this actually save time besides the two seconds of writing per task? Explain.
March 24, 2011 at 22:47 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
Not sure I understand why you are so worried about the H U G E waste of paper Marcelo. With SF I start about tw0 or three pages a day. Thats like nothing compared with all the other paper thats floating around here. I agree with Alan about the time, if youve spent 10 minutes working on something like you suggest then whats another 2 seconds to write the task out again.
March 24, 2011 at 23:13 | Registered CommenterMeryl
Hi Marcelo -- Interesting idea, I also like exploring things like that!

I also know how long it takes to come up with ideas like that, test them a bit, and then post about them. So practically, I've been doing AF/DWM/SF for more than two years now and I've probably spent about the same amount of time rewriting tasks during those two years, as the time it took you to develop and describe this system.

Let's say 3,000 tasks re-entered for one reason or another, and 2-3 seconds per task. I'll be pessimistic and say 3 seconds. That's 9,000 seconds, or 2.5 hours (over two years).

(With DWM I probably processed more tasks than that, but with DWM I was using Outlook so it took a single click to re-enter a task, so about 1/5th of a second. So I guess the two balance out.)
March 24, 2011 at 23:47 | Registered CommenterSeraphim
Alan and Meryl,

First of all, I have the same weakness that Mark Forster has for investigation and functional creativity, so I enjoy the research.

Alan:

“Explain” invites a rational response, so here it is:

I start from the premise that I will be re-entering around 100 tasks a day (at 33 lines per page that would be 3 pages - Meryl’s data confirms that this premise is realistic). I estimate the time for re-entering a task is 10 seconds (please time yourself considering you have to turn pages). That makes 1000 seconds = 16,67 minutes. I also consider that scanning through the notebook will take more time than having everything in a few pages. I will be sparing here and estimate that the system maintenance may take 20 minutes a day.

My working hour is worth approximately 30₤. 20 minutes are then worth 10₤. In a month that makes 300₤.

Now suppose someone offers you 300₤ a month for doing nothing. Would you say no?

Let’s take into consideration that also an improved system will take time. And that my estimates are not accurate. Suppose then the offer to be 100₤ a month. Nay, 50₤ a month. For doing nothing. Would you say no?

Why not?

I enjoy spending time doing things I like, but I really dislike when my time is taken away unnecessarily. I think the Focus series is great, but if it can be improved, and I believe it can (and I also believe Mark Forster believes it can be improved, otherwise he would not keep trying new things), then why not?

Meryl:

I take back the adjective HUGE waste of paper, it is exaggerated, but I replace it by unnecessary waste of paper. I believe the system can be run in a much more economic and ecologically conscious way. Even if the impact of this is mainly one of awareness (I don’t really believe AutoFocus users are deforesting jungles in Brasil for their notebooks) it is worthy trying.

And again: why not? What are you both defending here?
March 25, 2011 at 0:24 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Hi Seraphim!

Well, I am a terrible slow handwriter - and when I am not I can hardly read what I write :) So I really prefer to jot a bar in the page in front of me than to finger a notebook to rewrite a task.

I belive I am not the only one.

But there is also an esthetic quest in this... I guess you already know that.
March 25, 2011 at 0:48 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
I'd agree with the 50lb/mo estimate for mechanical savings. But if that's all, it's not enough.
Your idea is a fine one. I'd even adopt this for routine activities. Saving 15 minutes a day is good, but you seemed to suggest it was bigger than that.

Why 15 min isn't enough for me: SF has dismissing and shrinking lists and reordered elements that all contribute to its effectiveness. The scheme you propose loses these, and I feel they are worth more than 15 minutes.
March 25, 2011 at 1:30 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
Dismissal rules can be applied to this form of notation as well as to the classic form. The shrinking feature is only a result of those.

I'll give a try to this system of mine and report the results in a week or so.
March 25, 2011 at 10:57 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
What am I defending here? Ok fair enough question Marcelo. Lets see.

I guess what your system reminded me of was Marks system which he wrote about in Get Everything Done in which you have a more or less static series of tasks which you rotate round all on one page. And the problem with that is that it just gets very boring because you are always dealing with the same tasks in the same order. The AF/SF systems are much more dynamic and they have this addictive quality which a lot of people have commented on. I think you may be in the process of throwiing the baby out with the bathwater as they say.

Then you talk about the time spent rewriting tasks as wasted. Well of course the time is only wasted if its not productive. If rewriting tasks is an essential part of the most efficient and productive system possible then it woudlnt' be wasted would it? Im not claiming that SF cant be improved but I do think that the rewriting is an essential part of giving the system the sense of progress and push thats so importatn for keeping things moving. If you use dashes instead of rewriting and the result is that you get bored and take twice as long or even one percent longer over every task then thats not progress is it?
March 25, 2011 at 12:37 | Registered CommenterMeryl
P.S.

Paper isnt make out of the sort of trees that grown in the Brazilian rainforest or any other rainforest for that matter.
March 25, 2011 at 12:38 | Registered CommenterMeryl
Thanks for your answer Meryl,

I'll check the system in Get Everything Done, it interests me as I would like to have everything in one page so that I can catch in one glimpse how the day is going and be reminded of important things at the same time.

"Im not claiming that SF cant be improved but I do think that the rewriting is an essential part of giving the system the sense of progress and push thats so importatn for keeping things moving."

I am afraid AF as well as SF - though to a sensible lesser extent because of the pressure on completing tasks exerted by C2 - might give you just that: a sense of progress through moving tasks from one page to another. The notebook is a map, not reality. I am not interested in moving tasks in a notebook but in moving things in reality - even if my map remains static as a rock.

But that is personality-dependant. I can see how the excitement and sense of accomplishment produced by moving tasks in a notebook can be motivational and therefore important for many, myself included.

Anyway, so far for me these were preparatory speculations. Real answers can only be found empirically. I already started implementing my system and your mention of the one in Getting Everything Done is very timely!
March 25, 2011 at 17:58 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Well Marcelo I tried Get Everything Done empirically when it first came out ten years ago and I promise you that Superfocus is a trillion times better. But I guess you have to find that out for yourself.
March 25, 2011 at 23:20 | Registered CommenterMeryl
Thank you again Meryl, for some reason I resist SF, so I'll try this system I've put together and if it doesn't work I'll reconsider SF.
March 26, 2011 at 1:01 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
You may find some good ideas in Erik's kanban system. Erik also didn't like rewriting.

http://www.markforster.net/forum/post/1198224
March 26, 2011 at 1:26 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
Oh I see Marcelo, you havent actually tried SF or your own system.
March 26, 2011 at 7:51 | Registered CommenterMeryl
Thank you Alan, this is a great link for me! I've thought many times of managing tasks with "post-its" that I could move back and forth between an action's depot and a calendar, but haven't figured out well how to do it. Erik's kanban is an excellent starting point for me.
March 26, 2011 at 9:21 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Meryl,

Yeah, I am in the middle of nowhere moving from GTD to... ? Surprisingly life did not fall apart yet, even without a system to hold it.
March 26, 2011 at 9:25 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Alan, I need to thank you again. The kanban not only fits my esthetical inclinations, but the idea behind it, that of maintaining a balanced view of life, is exactly what I was doing with less adequate systems. I am a shiatsu practitioner so for me it was extremely fast and intuitive to organize all my projets and tasks according to the 5 Elements Theory (Chinese Medicine) in the kanban. It is visually very appealing, all tasks are distributed in post-its in five different colors corresponding to the five elements (used more or less as contexts), no need to rewrite anything, just move the tasks according to the kanban workflow. Excellent. You definitely had a good hunch when thought of directing me ot Erik's site.
March 26, 2011 at 19:47 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
I would use Erik's kanban system if someone would categorize my tasks for me each day into those energy categories. I like the theory, and it appeals to my taoist martial arts background, but having to pre-categorize everything before I can act was one of several obstacles for me in GTD.

Instead, AF/SF's "stand out" method effectively identifies the energy that comes next: if it "stands out," it must be the kind of energy I am ready for. Not that I'm thinking about the type of energy, at all, but it has the same effect.

As for the visual appeal, I totally agree. Again, if only someone would do all that color-coding for me ...
March 27, 2011 at 4:01 | Registered CommenterBernie
Bernie,

I agree, the "stand out" method is a straightforward way to connect to your mode in the present moment.

Me, I am usually quite connected with my guts, my problem is I can start working on a project in the morning and I when I realize it it's already midnight and I haven't done any of the many other things I had to do, so rather than more focus what I need is more perspective. The kanban seems to be thought for that.

As for figuring out those energy categories, I was already using a model that suits me. If you are interested in finding out what are yours, that's a journey in itself. If that doesn't worry you right now and the "stand out" method does the job... why change it?
March 27, 2011 at 18:11 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
2nd thought: When I set up my kanban yesterday, I noticed how many Metal (related to limits, order, money, etc) tasks I had and how few Fire (joyful activities, recreation, relationships) tasks were there. I immediately started to correct this. When I ported my tasks to the SF notebook before (I used it for a while) I didn't pay attention to that, as there is no special key to deal with the issue of balance in life, just a list of undifferentiated tasks.

When you apply "stand out" to the list, your intuitive mind works only with the tasks in the list. There is no built in mechanism in the system to signal your life is out of balance or anything of the sort. The brief note at the end of AF rules: "DO include plenty of creative tasks such as “Think about...”, “Investigate...”; “Discuss...”; “Review...” is far from achieving that.

It may justly be argued thar SF is not a "General System for Everyting", its scope is limited to motivate you to do the tasks you enter, and this it does.

But I appreciate a system that can give me a feedback not only of how I am performing but also of how I am leading my life.
March 27, 2011 at 20:38 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
<<< It may justly be argued thar SF is not a "General System for Everyting", its scope is limited to motivate you to do the tasks you enter, and this it does. But I appreciate a system that can give me a feedback not only of how I am performing but also of how I am leading my life. >>>

I actually disagree with this. SF handles these kinds of things really well. Just enter "Need more balance? How to achieve it?" or something like that in your list. It can prompt repeated deep reflection on the topic, and spawn many practical and useful actions that will help you achieve it.

In fact, in my own experience, SF has handled these kinds of things much better, with more satisfying and concrete results, than other systems that apply an artificial set of categories that need to be "balanced". (I've tried many, over the years!! some of them goal-centric, others more "balance" centered, organized around "life area" or "focus area")

If you do already have a set of categories that works for you, like Marcelo and Erik seem to have, then you can still use SF to help achieve the balance -- enter tasks like:

"Need more balance?"
"Which area of my life isn't getting enough attention?"
"How can I synchronize my areas of focus to get more balance?" (Covey's "fire within")

If those tasks stand out, then give them some thought and attention, maybe repeatedly in C2 till you feel more satisfied.

If they DON'T stand out, then maybe balance isn't your issue.

I'd recommend adding all kinds of questions like this to your SF list, whenever they come to mind, and let SF sort them out for you.
March 28, 2011 at 0:36 | Registered CommenterSeraphim
I find this all interesting. In my case balance has come about gradually through regular review of the major areas, exactly like Seraphim suggests. Add the desired catgeries of items to the list, and when one Category stands out work on it by planning activities that fit, and adding these to the list. Over time I get more activities of the sort that was lacking.
March 28, 2011 at 3:29 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
Marcelo, I agree SF does not enforce balance, but I am finding it has already improved my balance as a side effect, by keeping me more in touch with my list. For now, that is enough to keep me happy.

Before SF, I was toying with a visual tool for balancing my workload, and it turns out it is compatible with—and enhanced by—kanban and Erik's ideas (thanks, Erik! I would post thx on your site, but I don't see how without a Twitter account). The biggest difference is that I would classify tasks *after* completing them, one at a time. There would be no need to be selective about tasks until the board began to fill up. Also, I don't think individual days need to—or ought to—be balanced, but the balance should take place in the long run. So I may yet be moving little colored blocks around my map, if that seems necessary and/or fun. I really like Erik's "build my day" notion (but I would build my week or month instead).

Alan & Seraphim, considering the closed-list dynamic, a balanced SF list will lead to balanced work in the long run. Your suggestions seem like simple, effective ways to keep the list balanced. The only "leak" is in the dismissals: a balanced list, minus unbalanced dismissals, equals unbalanced work done. But this means we can monitor our work just by reviewing dismissals, something like—you know—a "list urinalysis" (did I just say that out loud?). As dismissals are sparse, this sort of review should be very manageable.

But at the moment, I am plenty happy with my new skills in "The Art of C2," so I won't be adding anything else for a bit.
March 28, 2011 at 5:11 | Registered CommenterBernie
Bernie, your welcome :)

If you post a thank you on the first video (the one where I explain the system) it would be at the right place. By the way, there are no comments there because I had to redesign the site and all the comments where lost :(
March 28, 2011 at 11:23 | Registered CommenterErik
"In my case balance has come about gradually through regular review of the major areas, exactly like Seraphim suggests. " (Alan Baljeu)

SF doesn't mention any areas or anything of the sort to be reviewed. The need to do so is not triggered by the system but by something outside it - your own awareness usually. (Just making the point that it is not part of the original system).

"SF has handled these kinds of things much better, with more satisfying and concrete results, than other systems that apply an artificial set of categories that need to be "balanced". " (Seraphim)

This is very important and a central point to consider: I've been researching and applying taxonomies of areas of life, since Maimonides in the Middle Ages (money, body, social virtues, intellect - they stand in reverse order of dependence and importance) through Maslow Pyramide of Needs and up till the contemporary authors on personal development and productivity, starting with Covey. I have finally adopted the Chinese Five Elements theory. It is not about dividing life in arbitrary areas. The 5x theory is a development of the Yin Yang concept and is in fact a cosmology, applied to health and other aspects of life for thousands of years. The elements are dynamically interrelated. The system is too complex to explain it here, but taking my own example that I brought before: too much Metal tasks (related to limits, money, etc) and too few Fire related tasks (related to joyful activities, relationships, etc), does not mean the way to go is adding Fire tasks and reducing Metal tasks. If I am in this situation there is a cause for it and I cannot just force myself to do things I am not in a condition to do, e.g. I cannot force myself to go to a party and enjoy it if I am not in the mood for it. Because of the relations between the elements I can see that Metal (money) is restraining the energy of Wood (creativity) which in its turn is unable to nurture Fire (joy). In this case, what I need to do to correct this imbalance is restraining the Metal (money) element, let the Wood (creativity) element flow, and the Fire (joy) element will naturally flourish.

This example shows a little how I apply the 5 Elements Theory to personal development and productivity.

Obviously the categories or system must not be arbitrary, they have to truly resonate with you, otherwise you are imposing on yourself a valueless structure.

If the latter is the case, the "stand out" method which is a direct appeal to your intuition may be a better choice. Its limitation though, is that our intuition is usually cohibited by cultural conditioning. A developed system like the 5 elements theory can be used not only to effectively deal with issues in live but also to develop intuition.
March 28, 2011 at 13:48 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Quoting <Marcelo>:
<SF doesn't mention any areas or anything of the sort to be reviewed. The need to do so is not triggered by the system but by something outside it - your own awareness usually. (Just making the point that it is not part of the original system).>

I entirely agree. SF doesn't talk about balance. I think about balancing, and through SF I easily get that to happen. In my case it began with reflection (prompted by books such as Covey's and the Bible) on how I'm living. Brief studies don't achieve much in themselves . However entering these areas into SF is proving effective, because it leads to action on the areas. In similar fashion, reflecting on aspects of my work does seem to improve balance there. But there's nothing mystical about it. In the end it's nothing more than "What am I doing? What should I be doing? Write those things down so I'll do them."

<taking my own example that I brought before: too much Metal tasks (related to limits, money, etc) and too few Fire related tasks (related to joyful activities, relationships, etc), does not mean the way to go is adding Fire tasks and reducing Metal tasks. If I am in this situation there is a cause for it and I cannot just force myself to do things I am not in a condition to do, e.g. I cannot force myself to go to a party and enjoy it if I am not in the mood for it. >

Good example, and that is also my experience. I can't force what doesn't suit my mood. (Although the Jewish proverb says that feeling follows doing. Often it's worth acting despite your mood. Decide afterwards whether a particular activity negates or magnifies your feelings.) Fortunately, SF is very gentle. If I think I ought to do more relationship activities, I add some to SF. If I don't (after repeated prompting over weeks), it will be dismissed. Then comes review, and I'll think again why I didn't though I believe it was a good idea. I still believe it so I change the task to something I'm more likely to do.

<Because of the relations between the elements I can see that Metal (money) is restraining the energy of Wood (creativity) which in its turn is unable to nurture Fire (joy). In this case, what I need to do to correct this imbalance is restraining the Metal (money) element, let the Wood (creativity) element flow, and the Fire (joy) element will naturally flourish.>

Interesting analysis. Quite different from what I cited above, but I would integrate such analysis within tasks in SF. The SF framework I described, prompts you to review activity and assess why you're not doing. Your "why" is guided by 5 Elements Theory.
March 28, 2011 at 14:37 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
SF *does* have some of this "built in" -- for example, the balance between the urgent and the non-urgent; the balance between the "important" and the "routine trivia". SF allows you to strike a very effective balance.

On the other hand, sometimes I don't want balance. Sometimes I want focus. For example, I'm glad those nuclear-plant workers in Japan were FOCUSED on their heroic efforts on containment -- the balancing comes later.

And SF does a GREAT job of allowing you to focus, sacrificing balance for the time being, if that's what you want and need.

Most of the time I want balance, because it's the balance that sustains the focus -- and SF delivers on that as well.

In other words, SF allows you to have a great balance between balance and focus. That almost sounds like a pun or something. :-)

It's up to the USER to decide what kind of balance is desired. SF is very simple and can accommodate any number of cosmological approaches to balance. :-)

If you want to base it on the Chinese Five Elements theory, then that fits perfectly well into SF. But it's up to YOU, the user, to enter the appropriate items to trigger reflection and action to achieve the kind of balance you desire. E.g., "Reflect on the five elements - do you have the balance you want?" "Fire is weak; how to make it strong?" Those kinds of repeated C1 reflections can trigger multiple concrete tasks that can help you achieve that balance in a practical, tangible way. All while managing your workload and paying your taxes and walking the dog. :-)

Covey's "7 habits" are also a tightly integrated, interdependent set of principles that can help achieve balance. If that system appeals to you, you can enter things into SF like "How can I integrate my different roles more effectively?" to help trigger deeper reflection along those lines.

I've been re-reading "Monastic Wisdom", a collection of letters written by a Elder Joseph the Hesychast, an Orthodox Christian monk from Mount Athos in Greece in the 1940s and 1950s. This has been prompting deep reflections on my own life, and has triggered several entries into SF. It's been helping me to unravel the causes of many conflicts in my life (especially helping me see that I'm the root cause of them). SF has been helping me with all this -- the reading itself, as well as the pondering, the reflection, and the changes in behavior and habit that I need to implement.

SF has also helped me sort out other issues of life-balance and life-priorities, such as dealing with health issues. I've always known I needed to get more exercise and lose some weight -- putting these into SF has triggered repeated reflection on the issues, and helped me to reorganize my schedule and other commitments, so I am now taking action on it.

And SF is doing all that while also helping me get my work done, clear my email, coordinate my project teams, help my daughter with her college work, deal with the noisy phone line, help my six-year-old daughter remember to feed the cats, pay the bills, set up a town hall meeting with our state senator, follow up on insurance claims, and read a couple articles in Astronomy magazine now and then...
March 28, 2011 at 16:44 | Registered CommenterSeraphim
I use the same blank book for months by moving colored stickies, a la Erik's system. After a while the stickies may need replacing. At which point I may rename the activity just to keep things fresh, like switch "Restore House" to "Tidy Up". It takes minutes to arrange my day. I have thought of using SF with stickies and two columns in my notebook. For now I just move urgent things to the top.

One thing I haven't figured out is a good way to see how much time I invest in a project over time. I'm thinking a tick system like Marcelo uses, on my project pages would work.
March 28, 2011 at 18:07 | Registered CommenterErin
Balance and Balance Cycles:
In relation to Erik’s Kanban and Bernie’s note, natural cycles I consider: a day is an obvious unit, a week is more versatile; moon phases have an influence on my kind of energy, as well as seasons during the year, so I try to consider both. I prefer solar hours to mechanical ones (shorter days in winter, longer in summer). If I were a woman I would definitely consider menstrual cycles (well, if you are a woman you probably don’t need *me* to tell you *that*).

As for programmed unbalances as Seraphim suggests, yes, sometimes you need them, (I need one now) though they are still done with balance in mind. If you don’t compensate for them, nature will remind you in unpleasant ways.

Alan:
“Fortunately, SF is very gentle. If I think I ought to do more relationship activities, I add some to SF. If I don't (after repeated prompting over weeks), it will be dismissed. Then comes review, and I'll think again why I didn't though I believe it was a good idea. I still believe it so I change the task to something I'm more likely to do.” - It is more efficient to see the cause at once.

“Although the Jewish proverb says that feeling follows doing.” This takes us away from the subject, but if you already mentioned it it is in place to remember than in Chassidic Judaism action is of threefold nature: mental, verbal and physical. This is also true in the Buddha’s instructions to his son Rahula.

Seraphim:
I can see if you are dexter using SF you can do everything with it. I still like better the kanban for its visual quality. Vision is the most powerful sense and gives information faster.

Erin:
I am happy you can find an use for that.

Erik:
If you happen to see this post I want to thank you again for the kanban. I saw your video “One Full Day” yesterday and found it extremely instructive. Recommend it to everyone.
March 28, 2011 at 20:35 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
"It is more efficient to see the cause at once. ... Vision is the most powerful sense and gives information faster."

Very good points!
March 28, 2011 at 21:05 | Registered CommenterAlan Baljeu
Marcelo:

Thanks for watching the LONG video and the kind comment!

By the way, I'd like more information about the Chinese Elements. I'm more of a Japanese kind of guy but the five elements are mirrored here. I guess that's what I do with my categories but I'd like more info on how they interact with each other. I'd be interested in finding a way to incorporate it in my system IF it doesn't cause overhead :)

Can you point me in an informational direction?
March 28, 2011 at 22:48 | Registered CommenterErik
SuperFocus is like a hammer. Once you learn to quit banging your thumb, you can use it to build most anything, despite its drop-dead simplicity.
March 29, 2011 at 4:14 | Registered CommenterBernie
Erik,

Texts related to the Five Elements Theory came usually mingled with and applied to Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture. I did a search to find out something more understandable for quelqun qui n’est pas dans le metier, et ce que j’ai trouvé de mieux c’est “Shiatsu theory and practice - a comprehensive text for the student and professional” by Carola Beresford-Cooke. In pages 79-81 she speaks about the relationships between the elements and afterwards in Section 3 (p. 95 onwards) she goes in depth into each element in the context of shiatsu but at the beginning of each element she gives a comprehensive description in general terms. You can find a limited preview of the book in Google Books so you can get an idea if this is for you.

Another source that can help you is a PDF you can download from this link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CBUQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amareway.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2FStandard_Terminologies_on_Traditional_Medicine_TCM_Kampo.pdf&ei=HVCRTe2yCpKZhQfFyomgDw&usg=AFQjCNEIVE_7Q4M0qXxcEKeTR0j6n2cQOg&sig2=-R4lex7DnlrBdRGUXszFRA

This is the World Health Organization International Standard Terminologies on Traditional Medicine in the Western Pacific Region. In articles 1.1.1 through 1.1.48 you will find all the basic concepts related to the Five Elements Theory.

I can’t assure you it won’t cause overhead - I extrapolated the concepts for a general context after many years of practice, but I think it is worth a look.

May be I should write a “Five Elements Theory for the Rest of Us”... it goes to my Someday/Maybe :)
March 29, 2011 at 6:36 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
"... quelqun qui n’est pas dans le metier, et ce que j’ai trouvé de mieux c’est..." means: "...someone who is not in the trade, and the best I found is...". Sorry, it just came out in French knowing Erik's mother tongue is French. I forgot this is a public forum, not a private media. Corrected.
March 29, 2011 at 12:51 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
One of the best thing about reading comments here is that I get to read a little French. :)

I've been very interested in the 'five elements' discussion and went to look at the book Marcelo suggested and the pdf. Everywhere I went, too long, too much medical talk. Not enough like:

Metal (related to limits, order, money, etc) Fire (joyful activities, recreation, relationships) or
Wood (creativity)
(by Marcelo)

Marcelo, could you share that many words here on Water and Earth?

In C2 this morning is to watch one of Erik's videos. I'm sure it says something about me (both my thoughts on the book/link on five elements and Erik's videos) but I'm looking for the 10-15 min vid. ;) I only found 1 hr and 75 min ones. But as instructed, I'll watch over coffee today.
March 29, 2011 at 15:50 | Registered Commentermalisa
Oh oh, I've got into trouble here. What I've said about metal, fire and wood are already applications of the quallities of those elements to my life under certain circumstances. The elements are rather qualities, different phases that the energy goes through, transforming itself. There is no other way to learn than learn :) But I'll give a little more:

Let's take emotions or mental states (people like that) and exemplify a cycle:

earth is related to reflective thought
metal to grief
water to fear
wood to anger
fire to joy

Now, earth creates metal, metal creates water, water creates wood, wood creates fire. Another cycle of relationships is: earth controls water, metal controls wood, water controls fire, wood controls earth, fire controls metal.

Mmm...

Let's start by earth... you are reflecting, thinking (looking at your list)... "what am I going to do now"... in order to decide what to do you have to choose something and give up something, renounce to something, you look at the items you are not choosing... you move into metal, separation and grief... you look again at your list "but what if I am wrong in my decision, what if I am mistaken"...you doubt, you fear error, you get into a water state of mind (not quite GTD mind like water) and then you decide: enough! (this is anger, but good anger: you take a decision and move into action), you do what you have chosen to do, you accomplish it, you cross over your task (you are using SF, aren't you?) and you experience satisfaction, joy - you've moved into fire... ah! Then fire starts to fade away, and you find yourself reflecting, thinking (looking at your list)... "what am I going to do now..."

That's the movement of energy through one cycle. I have magnified the emotions of course, but they are there...
March 29, 2011 at 17:22 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
So Marcelo after all that movement of energy have you actually tried SF or your own system out yet?
March 29, 2011 at 17:30 | Registered CommenterMeryl
Oh, I am using the kanban :)

Well, my time for relax is over...
March 29, 2011 at 17:38 | Registered CommenterMarcelo
Marcelo:

You've started two threads in a week about new systems you've thought up loosely based on SF - without having tried out either SF or the new systems. You have abandoned both your systems just as soon as something new has appeared without having made any serious attempt to evaluate them.

Please note that if you wish to propose any further systems, I will expect you to have carried out some serious testing on them BEFORE you write posts about them.
March 29, 2011 at 18:22 | Registered CommenterMark Forster
Marcelo,

I urge you to give plain-old SuperFocus a concerted try in its glorious simplicity (and long enough to master C2!). Your interest in Taoist concepts will quickly lead you to appreciate that there is more to SuperFocus than meets the eye—much, *much* more! You will find your mind turning it over & over, like a Lao-Tze verse, a koan, or a haiku, always finding more in less.

For example, this morning I was watching myself switch projects as resistance to one built up (after 40 minutes of productive work on it), and I found myself craving a certain task that I knew was in C1. Instead of fighting this blockage (out of "discipline"), I switched and spent the next chunk of time just as productive, on a perfectly legitimate and valuable goal, whereas in the past this would have quickly degenerated into mindless web surfing to relieve the tension (although I must confess to sneaking in a post on this site ;->).

It occurred to me that I had just seamlessly found an optimal path, like water running downhill, or as we say in Baguazhang, "following the energy to my target," and, "not fighting force with force." In bagua, I allow the target to pull me; in SuperFocus, I allow the *task* to pull me. In your healing art, you are probably not calling things "targets," but I know you are following energy as you work. Now, I've seen no indication from Mark Forster that SuperFocus was intended to be Taoist, but Truth is Truth, and things that Truly Work tend to have a lot in common.

"The Tao that can be told [named] is not the eternal Tao." As you classify your energies, however insightfully, you are naming them. Let SuperFocus guide you through those same energies, unnamed, unanalyzed, and see what happens. When something "stands out," maybe it's not so important what you call it.

I'll bet you will enjoy the journey!
March 29, 2011 at 19:38 | Registered CommenterBernie
Mark Forster:

OK. Your request is very appropriate.

Bernie:

Right now my kanban has started to evolve into interesting lines and I want to follow through. But I hear you.
March 30, 2011 at 2:45 | Registered CommenterMarcelo