Conquer Your Mind and Navigate Life: 6 Practical Maxims

Some time ago, during an exchange with acquaintances, I encountered a quandary:

Though often the need arises to explicate a dilemma meticulously, the deficiency may not necessarily lie in systematic cognition, but in what?

A concise and rudimentary compendium of actions, readily summonable when requisite.

This notion prompted me to disseminate some personal maxims, urging all to ponder: What creed might one employ to steer actions in diverse scenarios?

This composition marks the inaugural endeavor towards this concept.

The substance therein is neither intricate nor arduous, rather a manual that can promptly be integrated into one’s life.

May it proffer inspiration and pragmatic assistance.

1. Refrain from precipitous decisions amid emotional perturbation.

In numerous treatises, I’ve expounded on the dichotomy of the cerebral apparatus: one system, tasked chiefly to process emotions and intuition, presided over by the amygdala; the other, for cogitation, analysis, and decision-making, overseen by the prefrontal cortex.

These systems operate in tandem, mutually suppressing one another. In essence: What does an emotional tumult signify? It signifies the brain’s perception of a looming threat, prompting the invocation of emotional recollections stored in the amygdala, wresting temporary control.

Yet, concomitantly, the prefrontal cortex is subdued, thus diminishing our discernment, ratiocination, and regulatory faculties.

Hence, when assailed by any emotion—be it fear, ire, anxiety, or stress—heed these inquiries:

What precipitated this emotional state?

Are the impending actions and decisions consonant with my desires?

Might deferring action yield adverse repercussions?

Contemplation of these queries activates the prefrontal cortex, quelling emotional impulses.

It behooves one to recognize that emotional vacillations arise from two distinct forces: external provocation and internal apprehensions.

These forces ensnare us, endeavoring to stifle rationality and subjugate us to emotional instinct. Ergo, a simplistic elucidation suffices: they are malevolent.

As delineated in “How to discern misinformation?” Any impetus urging abandonment of rational cogitation in favor of emotional compliance warrants scrutiny, for relinquishing rationality entails ceding agency over our actions to others.

Illustrative instances include:

When confronted with incendiary content, inducing vexation and impeding tranquility, one might inquire: Is it deliberately fomenting ire and resonance? If so, what end does it pursue?

Upon receiving a directive mandating immediate action sans deliberation (a common ruse employed by charlatans), one might mull: What urgency precludes contemplation?

In moments consumed by apprehension, distress, and dread concerning future events (particularly nocturnally), one might ponder: Does this issue necessitate immediate action? If not, might deferment afford clarity?

A prudent dictum dictates: naught is so exigent as to preclude brief reflection. In the throes of emotional flux, respite precedes resolution.

2. In the event of equipoise subsequent to meticulous deliberation, err on the side of action.

Psychology posits a classic theory of regret—the “time model of regret”: over time, regrets stemming from inaction eclipse those stemming from action.

Though irrational, this phenomenon persists, engendering nocturnal rumination and a sense of rueful loss.

Wherefore provide the mind such latitude?

Having meticulously pondered a matter sans resolution indicates equipoise in its risks and benefits. Relinquishing it proves arduous, transcending the realm of mere “endeavor.”

At such junctures, acknowledge:

Prolonged cogitation promises no clarity; rather, it squanders time and vigor in futility. Shun internal dissipation, for it avails naught.

Better to act impulsively, permitting subsequent contemplation.

Apprehend: ere action, only a fraction of the matter is discernible; stasis yields no further enlightenment—action alone unveils the complete panorama, be it auspicious or adverse.

Even if outcomes prove unsatisfactory, experience accrues, enriching life’s tapestry. No folly in that.

Acting impulsively does not connote recklessness, but rather eschewing prolonged deliberation in favor of swift action, subsequently pondering the modus operandi.

Initiate action, then devise stratagems to preclude mishap, bereft of recourse.

To wit: assume a stance, commit, foreclose retreat, then devote attention to preemptive measures. With no avenue of retreat, concentration sharpens on efficacy and circumvention of pitfalls.

Thus, contemplate the aftereffects of assuming a stance. My modus operandi typically encompasses:

Anticipating worst-case scenarios, fortifying mental resolve.

Contemplating myriad trajectories, formulating contingency plans and alternatives.

Forecasting potential indicators, ensuring congruence with expectations.

Such prudence precludes regret.

3. Harmonize cogitation and execution temporally.

The endeavor to act bifurcates into two phases: contemplation and execution.

Contemplation encompasses all endeavors antecedent to execution—weighing, conceiving, plotting, monitoring, reviewing.

Execution denotes action consonant with devised plans, propelling actual advancement.

An ideal approach entails an alternating, balanced interplay—dividing tasks into incremental stages, preluded by planning and succeeded by review, adhering to a “think-act-think-act” rhythm, maintaining equilibrium.

Alas, reality often finds us ensnared in inertia.

Consider: A task slated for completion in seven days ideally mandates morning deliberation, afternoon planning, and evening review on the first day; execution throughout the second day, with nocturnal review and planning; and so forth.

Yet, most endure a divergent trajectory:

Two days lost to vacillation, two more to devising a commencement strategy. Then, in a frenzy to meet the deadline, three days consumed in feverish execution, bereft of cogitation.

This model portends mediocrity where excellence beckons.

Hence, a rudimentary proposal:

Refuse prolonged stasis in either contemplation or execution, perpetually oscillating between the two.

For instance: As an inveterate analyst, I impose strict limits on contemplation time. Within a project, contemplation on viability mustn’t exceed 5% of the timeline; formulation of strategy, 15%.

Furthermore, upon detecting protracted execution sans commensurate contemplation, pause to reflect, rectify, and recalibrate.

Regular review—daily, weekly—proves indispensable, obligating transition from execution to contemplation. Prolonged dearth of recollection signals blind execution, devoid of introspection.

Hence, introspect: recalibrate life and labor, allocating time for contemplation.

Else, subsist merely; live not.

4. Most of the concerns you harbor seldom materialize.

I have imparted a subtle stratagem: create an “anxiety receptacle”. When besieged by unease, inscribe the quandary and deposit it within the vessel of anxiety. Simultaneously, delineate the source of your apprehension, envisage the dire consequences it portends, and chronicle the temporal dimension.

Upon subsequent perusal, you may discern:

A majority of the tribulations cataloged within this ledger remain mere phantoms.

This phenomenon finds corroboration in scholarly inquiry. In the annals of 1999, certain scholars conducted an empirical endeavor and ascertained that: (Borkovec et al., 1999)

1) Approximately 85% of the preoccupations we entertain fail to transpire;

2) Should our apprehensions materialize, about 79% of the outcomes surpass our dire imaginings;

3) Those capable of relinquishing their angst inhabit a superior physiological realm compared to those perennially ensnared in trepidation and disquietude, thereby manifesting a greater fortitude and efficacy in confronting authentic challenges.

In essence, out of a corpus of 100 predicaments, only a trifling 3 necessitate substantive redress. The remaining 97 quandaries constitute naught but internecine friction.

Why, then, indulge in worry?

Certain acquaintances may contend: Admittedly, there subsists a 3% contingency of occurrence, and unforeseen vicissitudes may engender vexation. How ought one contend with such exigencies?

Recall this fundamental verity: Anxiety and apprehension avail naught in resolving dilemmas; rather, they serve to deplete one’s reservoir of vim and vigor. Authentic resolution of quandaries emanates from one’s own reservoir of resources, faculties, experiential acumen, and psychological resilience.

How, then, to combat anxiety? A straightforward yet efficacious stratagem is thus:

Tether the tendrils of anxiety and dread to the resolve to “fortify oneself”.

Put succinctly: Upon detecting the encroachment of anxiety and dread pertaining to particular concerns, remind yourself:

The likelihood of this quandary materializing is modest. And should it manifest, I possess the wherewithal to navigate it.

In anticipation of authentic exigencies, it behooves one to fortify oneself in the present moment.

This approach efficaciously obviates deleterious emotions and stressors, endowing one with a surfeit of motivation for erudition, labor, action, and self-improvement.

5. When confronted with games or conflicts, contemplate initially the feasibility of collaboration.

In his treatise “The Evolution of Cooperation,” political theorist Robert Axelrod posited a parable:

Imagine your participation in a game, with a different adversary each round. Each turn affords the choice between deceit or cooperation. Opting for the former entails no loss; conversely, selecting the latter entails forfeiture of one gold coin, with the adversary gaining three.

Should both parties elect cooperation, each garners a net gain of two gold coins; in the event of mutual deceit, neither incurs loss or gain; whereas unilateral deceit grants the deceiver three gold coins at the expense of the deceived’s solitary coin.

This parabolic contest effectively encapsulates real-world dynamics, attracting considerable scholarly scrutiny. A cadre of experts has devised sundry algorithms for competitive emulation. The triumphant algorithm?

An algorithm christened “Tit for Tat”: initiate with cooperation and extend goodwill; thereafter, replicate the previous round’s counterpart behavior.

While this algorithm may not yield maximal returns in a singular instance, its protracted application culminates in the loftiest mean yield.

Of course, I do not aver that a mere parable suffices as a lodestar. My contention is rather thus:

In the tapestry of existence, the pursuit of concord, mutual gain, and collaboration perennially accrues greater advantage to both parties.

This may not always yield optimal returns in isolated endeavors, yet adherence to the ethos of “cooperation foremost” invariably yields auspicious outcomes in the longue durée.

In sum, when the prospect of discord, competition, suspicion, or confrontation looms, contemplation of negotiation and formulation of mutually beneficial strategies augur enduring stability and amity.

Naturally, this injunction does not advocate evasion of conflict nor does it imply weakness. It merely proffers counsel: prioritize cooperation, reserving competition as a dernier ressort. Abstain from squandering time and energy on futile and avoidable strife.

Should the counterparty evince no inclination toward collaboration or manifest insincerity, there exists no imperative for timidity; reciprocity is warranted.

These precepts comprise the credo I cherish, which I am gratified to disseminate herein:

1) I maintain faith in the innate beneficence of the vast majority of humanity. Where an avenue exists to engender mutual benefit sans harm, it behooves one to eschew detriment to others and self.

2) In all endeavors, accord primacy to the satisfaction of pertinent stakeholders (e.g., clientele and collaborators), antecedent to personal gratification.

3) Endeavor to attend to all, refraining from capricious sacrifice of anyone’s preferences or sentiments. Each warrants consideration.

6. Immerse in the extrinsic realm, disengage from the internecine.

Many habitually commit the following fallacies:

They are wont to overanalyze life, their ruminations adrift. Their perspective is one of detached observation. For instance:

Amidst respite, the mind fixates on unfinished tasks; whilst journeying, attention gravitates toward personal concerns and logistics; amidst leisure, pursuits are denigrated as “squandered time”; even during convivial discourse, utilitarian aims persist, pondering “nurturing bonds” and “network expansion”…

Conversely, when ensnared by reminiscence or apprehension, they adopt an immersive and vicarious stance. They incessantly conjure scenarios of failure or setback, experiencing these vicissitudes firsthand. They persistently ruminate on past embarrassments and misfortunes, thereby reopening emotional wounds…

Though prevalent, this mode of comportment is antithetical to optimal conduct.

What, then, constitutes a superior approach?

When confronting the vicissitudes of life and the extrinsic realm, adopt the mantle of “self-immersion”. Engage fully with life, attenuate superfluous ruminations, and permit oneself to experience, express, and react in consonance with the immediate milieu. Only by temporarily dispelling extraneous cogitations may one induce a state of flow.

Thus, I presently endeavor to effect this paradigm shift: tempering mental acrobatics, eschewing perpetual cerebral tumult, and instead fostering receptivity to sensory stimuli—listening, observing, smelling, touching, experiencing—so as to fully immerse, feel, respond, and integrate.

It is a method conducive to relaxation and heightened engagement with life.

Conversely, when confronted with one’s inner sanctum—fears, anxieties, shame, embarrassment, discomfort—one ought to adopt a dispassionate stance, assuming a third-party perspective for scrutiny and appraisal. This tactic precludes undue interference from negative sentiments lurking within.

A rudimentary stratagem entails conjuring an idealized, perspicacious iteration of oneself, scrutinizing the “present self” and the “past self,” pondering: What dialogues might ensue? How would “he” regard the tumult and haze within one’s inner domain?

Often, the adoption of such a perspective reveals erstwhile nettlesome dilemmas to be inconsequential—a mere tempest in a teapot.

Should you, like myself, identify as an introverted, sensitive individual predisposed to rumination, I trust this counsel shall prove efficacious in effecting positive transformation.

error: Content is protected !!