Procrastination [in Full]

Thoughts I've had. Reasoning. Critical points I do not see discussed in conversations on being "productive", but that first come to mind.

1. Discipline is trust. It requires trust. Do you have trust? Between you and you, is there trust? Are you taken care of?
   
   1. Interoception. You will need to strengthen or build a system for listening to your mind and body and knowing what they need. You will need to be honest.
      
      1. You will need to begin addressing your fundamental needs. Food, water, shelter, healthcare are some of your fundamental needs. Novelty, play, stimulation, and engagement may be some of your other needs. Do you trust you to fulfill those needs? Do you believe discipline will require relinquishing play, fun, joy, novelty, and engagement, i.e., Do you believe discipline will require unmet needs? Are you taken care of? Will you get what you want? Will you be nourished?
         
      2. If you fear commitment to a path or having “discipline” means denial of joy or fulfillment, you will not want “discipline”.
         
   2. Say yes more often. Check your instincts to say no. Rigorously consider why not.
      
      1. When there is not a “problem” with yes, consider why you say no. Do you deny yourself joy for the sake of roleplay? For the sake of being “person who gets things done”? For the sake of fulfilling a “definition” that may not hold true? You need to trust you will ensure fulfillment. You need to trust cooperation and discipline will bring you what you want. What you need.
         Deprivation is not the objective. Neglect is not the objective.
         
2. Time sense. Chronoception. Can you accurately estimate or feel the passage of time? It doesn't matter if not. Each individual's time sense differs and many people with "good" time management estimate inaccurately. You'll need to get an initial sense of your own time sense to decide what kind of system you'll rely on going forward. If you're "procrastinating", it's more likely you are estimating inaccurately, specifically overestimating.
   
   1. Depending on the task and any emotional impacts, you may not be overestimating at all. You're possibly accounting for emotional fallout. This is good. This is a start. Take stock of emotional needs. Remember, Trust. Are you taken care of? Processing and managing emotional or psychological after-effects of mundane tasks is another step, its own step.
      
      Often, as other points here are addressed, emotional fallout decreases.
      
3. Trust, again. More trust. Can you have what you want? Do you believe you are capable of producing the results you desire? Do you believe you can figure things out? Do you believe your actions have an effect on your outcome? Or have you been bound to hopelessness, "destiny", inevitability?
   
   This is self-efficacy. It will need to be strengthened or rebuilt entirely. Many people have significant degrees of self-efficacy trained and conditioned out of them over the course of their lives. Often by young adulthood, but the training can continue for decades, depending on who you are surrounded by.
   
   1. You will need to start with experiments. Low-risk opportunities to prove something can begin in your mind and actualise tangibly in your life. Prove you can realise your ideas. Prove your ideas can be realised [if agency still makes you uncomfortable]. Prove your intentions can be fulfilled.
      
4. Scheduling and More Trust. "Time management" may have been used by people who do not comprehend or have sufficient knowledge of your mind and its functioning. It may have been weaponised against you. You may associate it with feelings of shame and guilt. You may associate it with certain kinds of people, a particular demographic you do not see yourself belonging to. If you associate any management of time and "getting things done" with people who have hurt you [emotionally or otherwise] or with people you do not find yourself alike, you may be subconsciously acting to maintain a distance between yourself and them. You may be unknowingly othering yourself, securing a particular identity, making sure you are not like anyone who has done you harm. You may not want to take on a behaviour or task you see as theirs.
   
   "Time management" is neutral. It belongs to no one. Time is no one's. Management is individual. "Time management" belongs to no one just as getting dressed belongs to no one, and how time is managed is individual just as the order in which you put on clothing is individual. You are already managing your time. Now, you're going to do it to get what you want.
   
   Scheduling is a matter of trust. It's a matter of discipline and discipline is trust. Both creating and syncing with a schedule require trust that the schedule will fulfill your wants and needs. If that trust is not there, if you do not trust you to take care of you, you will begin acting independently of you. The parts of you that do not feel you are adequately addressing their wants and needs, the parts that do not feel seen, will act independently of you. They will act independently of the you that is trying to maintain control, self-control. Discipline. If ever there is a governing body that does not address the needs of who it governs, the governed will act independently. They will have to. Should they seek survival or fulfillment, they will have to. Scheduling is a matter of trust.
   
   So, you will schedule, you will change your management of time, but more importantly, you will have to establish trust. This is paramount. Return to point one.
   
   1. If your schedule denies basic needs, you will fight against you. If your “discipline” denies basic needs, you will fight against you. If “commitment” requires denial of basic needs, you will fight against you. You may have needs for novelty, joy, or fun. Pleasure does not imply it is not a need. This does not logically reason. You must account for your needs. If you do not account for all your needs, the parts of you in need surely will. While you make a schedule, they will take the fulfillment of needs into their own hands. Because you are not in sync, not cooperating, their handling of needs may undermine your handling of other needs like safety, sleep, consistent meals, etc. It may result in risks and consequences you [collectively] could have avoided had the dominant you exercised your power and addressed their needs.
      
      Dominant you has knowledge other parts are not paying attention to. Other parts may be more reckless. Different parts of you are operating with different pieces of information. You have different focuses. Different specialties. You need to collaborate, combine your knowledge, and collectively address all of your needs. And you, the dominant you, have a duty of care. Listen to yourself. Listen to your parts. Address your needs.
      
5. Fear and Shame. Do you believe all people deserve to have their needs met? Do you believe all should fundamentally be well, be allowed progress and change and growth? Do you believe the "good" can ever do anything worthy of shame? You will need to identify the roots of your fears and shame. You don't necessarily have to go far, and you definitely don't have to do it all at once. It will likely be slightly different each time these emotional responses arise. Typically, though, it will all be grounded in a sense of worthiness or lack thereof. This is where we start to reason logically.
   
   Reasoning logically does not mean you will not continue to feel the emotions, and your objective isn't to not feel them at all. That could be an independent objective of yours, but that's a separate task. Fear and shame often result in "procrastination", not doing what needs to be done, or not doing what you'd otherwise want to do. The objective is for you to do. So, feel the emotions, but still do. Feel and do. That is the objective.
   
   Reasoning logically will go for your fundamentals. It will go after your fundamentals. You may resist reasoning if you find reasoning forces you to consider arguments, truths, or fundamentals you hadn't before. If reasoning may change how you fundamentally see the world. If you detect a shift in your sense of self. Some of your “fundamentals” may be perpetuating a diminished sense of self, a deprecating sense of self. They may be “fundamentals” trained or taught to you as opposed to fundamentals you reasoned towards yourself.
   
   You will need to reason towards having done something "wrong", having done something causing shame, and still being worthy of doing right. Still being the person to complete any tasks you would complete had you not done anything "wrong". You will need to reason towards the fact it makes the most sense for you to act "rightly", whatever that means in the moment. You will have to reason towards the fact this is still true regardless of what reaction you receive from anyone you encounter. You will have to be steadfast in your fundamentals. Establish trust in what you know. What you have reasoned towards.
   
   1. This primarily concerns procrastination that follows from an error that causes shame. If completing the tasks you would otherwise do brings a sense of normalcy, a sense of “life goes on”, you may find yourself falling still. You may find yourself unworthy of “going on”. You may believe you are “supposed to” be still. You are “supposed to” sit in shame. You may find yourself unknowingly doling out emotional punishments, and an extension of your punishment is you are not allowed to succeed. You are not “worthy” of going on. You must sit still and feel shame. This may be a learned reaction to errors. This kind of punishment may have been trained.
      
      1. You are putting yourself in extended time-outs. You may fear moving on to act “rightly” if anyone you encounter is intent on keeping you in shame. You may not be the only one seeking emotional punishments.
         
   2. If you already have an issue of worthiness or shame, reasoning that indentifies prior mistakes may exacerbate shame in a way that presents significant threats. Seek support and external balances. Others who will help you with shame.
      
6. Duality and Fear and Shame. Separation between "person who does right" and "person who does wrong" may be keeping you still. If you are "person who does wrong" [and you are presently, thus creating shame], then you are not "person who does right". It is "person who does right" who gets up to do the things they have to do, the things they want to do. It is "person who does right" who completes mundane tasks and takes care of their home, either body or house. Your body is a home. It is the person who does the right thing that does the right thing. It is them that gets things done. If you are feeling shame or guilt, it is likely you do not see yourself as doing the right thing. Either you do not think you are currently doing the right thing or you do not believe you have done the right thing, i.e., you are not the person who does the right thing. Like there may be with time management, there is an issue of identity.
   
   The objective is to understand they are one and the same. The objective is duality. The objective is to understand you can have shame, feel shame, you can have done something "wrong", and you are still the same individual you were before this something happened; you are the same individual who on other occasions does "right".
   
   1. If you experience chronic shame and an event is not identifiable, an objective may be understanding "person who does right" is self-fulfilling, it's a bit circular, almost mathematical in definition. Feel shame. Be the person who has done wrong, by your definition, and simultaneously do something the "right" person would do. You will not need to adjust your sense of self for this. You will not need to fight against shame. Do not fight your emotions. Think of yourself as "person who does wrong" so long as your mind is fixed on this identity and let it be fixed. Reason. If it is so absolute you are "person who does wrong", your actions will not change your identity. Completing one task "person who does right" would do will not change this identity. Complete one task. Complete the smallest task. Now that you are completing this task, as "person who does wrong", this task becomes representative of what a person who does wrong might do. There is no brute force. You are not immediately commanding you change your identity. Be "person who does wrong". You will need to keep incorporating tasks and allowing them to be things "person who does wrong" would do. Again, the objective is feel and do. Feel, but still do. We are working on "procrastination".
      
      If ever you are ready, begin observing similarities between you and an example of "person who does right". Check how you fulfill the definition of "person who does right".
      
      1. Mathematical in definition— You observe this thing, observe its behaviours, observe its properties, and then call it Thing. Observe. Then give it a name to identify it apart from other things. Let us define Thing as any arbitrary thing that exhibits these properties, these behaviours. If a thing exhibits [properties], then it is Thing. We will call it Thing. Let the thing do what it naturally will do, and then nickname it Thing for the sake of organisation.
         
         This is distinct from picking an arbitrary thing and demanding it display properties of a Thing. Picking a name you want, Thing, and describing a list of properties to attach to the idea you call Thing. Then finding an arbitrary thing with its own properties and deciding you will call it Thing. From now on, you will not do anything you ordinarily do, you will do what I said Things do, because I have decided to call you Thing. I command you be Thing.
         
         Mathematical in definition: it is what it is. It only is whatever it is. It can be as it is.
         
         Let it be… Let there be… Let there exist… Let X be…. And only then, It is said to be… We call it… We write….
         
         Let X be…. Let it be.
         
      2. You need to apply your mathematical thinking to other domains. Apply this reasoning and definition making to your other domains.
         
         You do the things that will ultimately belong to a title before your title is received. Do things, let yourself do things, let yourself be, and ultimately the title must be received. By definition, you are Thing, but display of properties comes first.
         
         Currently, you are forming definitions the other way, possibly in two ways. You may have started with a mathematical definition [I did “wrong”, thus I am “person who does wrong”], but at some point you released the reasoning system producing this. The reasoning system that says property before title is not present. Now, you find yourself in a situation of I am “person who does wrong”, thus I do not do things “right”. In present, in future, I will not do things “right”. I am “hopeless”. I am bound to do things “wrong”. I will not even begin taking up tasks of “right” people because I am “wrong”. It is commanded that I do “wrong”. It is done.
         
         The difference between you and a variable, an arbitrary thing, is time. You have a past, present, and future. Past is not future. Because time.
         
         If I pick a variable, x, with [properties], these properties are static. I choose x on its fundamentals and properties that do not change. My x does not move through time. You do. You have the advantage of time.
         
         For my x, past is future and there is only present. It has a static world. This cannot be said of you.
         
         Apply your mathematical thinking to other domains. You exhibit the properties before you are the thing. Once properties are exhibited, you are the thing. It is absolute. It is rigorous. The instant we observe the properties, We call it… We write…. By definition. It is immediate. If ever you find yourself as “person who does wrong” again after having done “wrong”, having “failed”, having made an error, you only need to begin displaying the other properties. You move through time. You change. You grow. Be “person who does right” again.
         
         If I tell you to be someone, then be them. Do not work to be them. ‘Be’ is not ‘work’, ‘be’ is not ‘try’, ‘be’ is not ‘become’. They are different verbs. It is instantaneous. You do not have to work at it over time. There is no “faking”. There is no “impostor”. You do not continue to prove it again. You are allowed to be “person who does right” immediately.
         
         Literally, the instant you do the things, the instant you display [properties], you are “person who does right”. It is absolute. That minute. That second. You are it.
         
         You may oscillate between “person who does right” and “person who does wrong” from one day to the next. You may oscillate between how you perceive yourself. Continue being “person who does right” for 5 minutes, for one day, for two days, then for a week. Let it grow as you form habits.
         
         Leaning away from mathematics—again because you have time, you have a forever nature—you may begin to entertain the idea singular titles do not persist. You cannot be reduced to “person who does right” or “person who does wrong” because it is too easy for it to change. You may begin to see failures of this system as it does not acknowledge basic truths of reality. You may finally begin to understand duality. Remember, we set our mathematical definitions for organisation. We want to know our thing is always a Thing, so we can begin to form theories, make connections—understand hypothesised rules. We cannot keep calling it Thing if its fundamental nature moves so easily. Everything we build from this foundation is unstable. We risk a collapse. It does not serve us to continue to call it Thing. You may eventually notice these collapses of other systems, logical failures, and contradictions. You may realise you cannot just be Thing. Your infinite nature, your potential for change, will cause difficulties for this reasoning system.
         
         1. [This collapses if you enter time minimums in your definitions. Just as there are arguments for them, there are many arguments to be made against including such minimums.]
            
      3. Simultaneously adopting two systems for forming definitions will cause difficulties. They have their own fundamentally different reasoning systems. The logic of one system does not necessarily coordinate with the other. The overall system, the system that is trying to combine two fundamentally different reasoning systems, will often not be logically sound. The reasoning procedures may not be rigorous. You may begin circling yourself, spiralling—forming loops.
         
         I did “wrong”, so I am “person who does wrong”: Reasoning System No. 1.
         
         Now that I am “person who does wrong”, I continue to do “wrong”. I am “person who does wrong”, so I can only do “wrong”: Reasoning System No. 2.
         
         So then, you do “wrong”, and by definition once again you are “person who does wrong” (by System No.1). And you spiral, and you circle, and you self-fulfill. You loop. You have written a program that endlessly loops as one definition demands fulfillment of the other. This program will continue for days, for weeks, for months, years, and decades. It has no logical end. It will only end if broken. Take the mathematical definition.
         
         Practically, this does not mean you will not feel shame. But it may mean you can reason with parts of yourself, and get them to even temporarily allow you to do. The other parts that carry shame do not want to not make sense any more than you do. They want to be right—logically sound. So, this may just allow you to do. Feel and do. Begin building a habit.
         

Reducing shame or reprocessing chronic shame may be it’s own task entirely, long-term, with the help of a trusted individual, personal or professional.

On Procrastionation.

The cover image is meant to serve as an example of how a stimulation need, a play need, an intellctual need, may present as a distraction or “procrastination”.