╔════════════════════════════════╗
║ Asking for Permission to ║
║ Sleep ║
╚════════════════════════════════╝
Posted: 2025-02-17 2:14:12 AM
Updated: 2025-02-17 2:59:17 AM
|
weird question, but may I sleep? I know I'm "cooked" asking for permission to sleep, but I think it's because I'm in a weird state where I have so much that I want to do, so many ideas, and so many intentions. But I feel like I just need to lie down. Maybe it is not sleep that I want, but the point of it is that I am seeking some form of pause or rest. The fact that I'm asking for permission shows the hesitation that comes naturally with holding so many things in my hand and finding it diffcult to put it down. It is like when you're carrying lots of items and do not know which ones to place down, because there is nothing to place down, because there is nowhere in public to place any of them down. So you just carry them all the whole way, even if it's uncomfortable, because you have to bring it all the way. Of course, next time, that does not have to happen, but the point is that people get into situations like that from time to time, where they over-invested and then began laying people off after they realized they've overextended. Regular risk-taking and pruning are part of company cycles.
For example, when I put too many items in my room because I want to get rid of a problem completely, because it is more psychologically comfortable to assign a task as "finished" than it is to be blended between states. To explain, I moved all the storage items from the balcony to my room. I chose to move all items instead of doing them gradually because I needed to make clear the intent to begin putting them into racks and the intent to clear the balcony already. This was a statement just as much as it was a logistical concern, because eventually, the storage items will get too much. And even if one never puts too much, the psychological barrier is there, and I will treat physical items as throwables rather than things that can be sorted, kept, reserved, and archived, which is not sustainable for long-term resource collection and growth.
Anyway, the point is that after it has been around two weeks or so, there is no the concern that the items in the room are starting to be excessive. But since I did this passionately and with strong intent, I did not feel uncomfortable or obstructed much even with the items. It is only now that I'm re-considering and opening up the possibility of over-extension because of this passage. There is a resemblance here to companies, which cycle between risk-taking (hiring) and downsizing (cutting back and layoffs).
Logically, everything being done gradually makes sense, but if we consider the cognitive-psychological aspect, there is a difference between a finished task and an unfinished tasks. Human brains are not supposed to decide too many things in one day, and that is why we often focus on the binary state of finished and unfinished. This way, we're much more productive and accurate since we're actively dealing and meeting our challenges through decision-making, even if it may be in heuristics (Gigerenzer). But when looking at this from third person and omitting the cognitive-psychological lens, wondering why downsizing even happens is natural, since if everyone can be that based on sustainable metrics, why not do that then?
As said earlier, there is also the factor of "making a statement," or communication. The same way the finished-unfinished binary affects the decision-maker, it affects also how tasks are communicated. If people see an empty balcony, that says a lot more than a gradient. People are more attuned to geometric light and shadow in paintings for a reason.
That is why sometimes it is more effective to be clear (communicative) than to "efficient" from a "rational" systemic perspective, both in the short term and the long term. Sometimes, it is better to say something directly than to be vague and "beat around the bush," even if it means omitting the possibility of gradual exposure, because exposure that is stark is easier adjusted to than an communal conflict that is steeped in gossip and he-said-she-said. If communal conflict is done as straight as an arrow, not just in judicial-like precision, but in terms of yes-no accessibility with sufficient reasonable hedging of statements and clarifications—then we can easily see how a Task Well-Done is easier than a "Task" (Hmm?) in between states and caught up between interconnected paradigms that are tied to a myriad forces and factors, all of which have to be channelled through a host of perspectives to be fully digestible.
This is why in action stories, physical fighting is accessible to settle conflicts. Of course, in real life, that would be unsustainable, but the point is that directness is not a psychological-cognitive-communicative deficiency. It is a matter of minimizing decisions made in the head and focusing on how the least amount of decisions gets the most work done.
Even if theoretically, I should have been more uncomfortable with something—having too many items in my room, the reality is that it paradoxically would have been more uncomfortable if I did not listen to the urge to have the items put in the room in the first place.
As such, more often than not, it is better to have loved than to have never loved at all, even if it ended in heartbreak. The same way, it is better to have taken risks and then pruned than to have never listened to the urge to try and get the items fully cleared from the balcony, because the mind works in mysterious ways and hates—well—mystery.
People admire decisiveness, even if it means decisively owning up to later corrections, because it is easier to follow just as much as it is easier to criticize. And people love a boxing bag, like their favorite games. They love it so much they'll beat the shit out of it in daily practice, like a morning routine, like coffee. It is love brewed in abuse, because there are only two kinds of languages—the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses.
[Back to Top] [Go to Previous Page] [Back to Index]