I like using metaphors for how we are doing simple things in life, just because it can
a lot of that in self-development is there's a lot of boring actions: taking care of ourselves,
you know, working out, and doing work.
It's not always going to be very exciting and stimulating.
But it is part of a great project, a great project of making a better life, making a
meaningful life.
And so that is a big thing.
That is a fun and stimulating thing.
So it can be useful to find ways to make those connections, so we can feel like what we're
doing in the little day-to-day moments is connected to this bigger thing.
And I find one metaphor that works really well for personal management of life is thinking
of yourself as a country.
Imagine that you are your own country.
It could be any kind of organization.
You could imagine yourself as a corporation.
Even the word "corporation" comes from the word for a body.
conflicted inside.
a country.
Or perhaps a disagreement in management direction inside an organization.
So it can be interesting to imagine, whenever you have this kind of a deadlock, or there's
some kind of an internal conflict, to imagine this as what would it be like if this was
a political situation, where you have different people within society, different groups, different
how it wants you to be.
So this would be like this kind of a self-development faction that's all about, you know, "We you
want to improve yourself.
We want you to get better.
We want this country to change in these particular ways."
So they have set ideas about "This is where we're gonna go."
And of course, that faction can also have its own debates and conflicts within itself
as to what specific policies of self-development, what particular directions it wants to go.
You can have, like, the leadership convention inside a particular party.
You know, even though they're together, one political faction, but they're still having
fighting within themselves.
And then another faction would be this kind of "I want to enjoy myself right now" faction.
They are against this idea of this self-development vision, because that does not seem like it's
really worth doing.
And they would argue that "If you push this self-development too far, you're simply trying
to run yourself like you're a machine, and you're not going to be able to enjoy life.
And we're here to enjoy life, so let's enjoy life right now and not put it off."
That would be their campaign.
This political faction, they are about having fun right now.
I can feel that internal debate happening when I think "Oh, you know, it would be really
fun to play a video game right now, maybe watch this Youtube video.
But then here are these fun things that I could be doing instead."
So there's the battle of who wins and gets control of my will and my action.
So you could imagine it like a political debate, maybe like in a internal parliament, where
you have the factions arguing with each other and making their case.
And now, as to how the decision gets made, that depends on how you arrange your internal
government.
So you could make it like a democracy, and sort of have this majority rule effect, where
different parts of yourself will kind of make their choice.
"Should I do the boring work or have fun?"
They will then make their selection.
On the other hand, you could arrange your system like an aristocracy, where you have
a certain noble class, a certain faction that is automatically in power, so that they would
along.
And at the top, this monarch, the internal king, deciding what to do, giving the final
say on policy.
way to go, these respected leaders in a council advising the king, and then the king making
the decision "This is what I will do."
Or at the extreme, you could have a total dictatorship, where you simply have the autocrat,
the boss, who simply decides from the top "This is the program.
Everybody else: follow along."
And of course, each of these systems has its own issues and limitations.
With the democratic approach of listening to every part of ourselves and deciding based
The disadvantage being that the people may not decide to do what you really believe is
the ideal thing to do.
There may be some elaborate plan, policy, developed by these elites, but then the people
decide no, they would rather do something else, and so they do something else.
Sometimes called "populism" when people in a democratic system vote in a way that is
not appreciated.
want, and they can make a program.
So it may not be policy that is good for the whole of the body.
Maybe what this elite wants is not what the rest of the people want.
pure dictator.
simply rise up and topple the head, and say "No, we will take this no more.
We will set up our own leadership."
not going to do.
But that doesn't automatically mean that you can do it.
hour, do six hours of continuous work, then have my breakfast."
You may have a whole detailed program of how you decide is the best way to carry out your
meditate for an hour, do six hours of continuous work, and then have breakfast?
How would you do at carrying out such a program?
That sounds like the program of a dictator who has completely lost touch with the people,
and you don't know how much more you can do it.
You need some kind of break.
That's where possibly the ruler could bring in the old "bread and circuses" approach:
enough, that they continue doing what is expected of them.
But of course, pure bread and circuses, the people just want more and more bread and circuses
for less and less effect, until eventually it doesn't work anymore, and they overthrow
the policy.
That would be like the moment when you just say "Enough of this.
I give up.
I'm going to eat some junk food and play a video game.
today.
I just... no more of this program.
I'm sick of it."
cannot decide to do anything, cannot just make people do whatever it wants.