It's easier to consciously de-specialize than to consciously specialize.

It’s been my observation and experience that initially, it’s easier to consciously de-specialize from an undesired inspiration than to consciously specialize into a desired inspiration. By this, I mean that, for example, it’s easier to consciously de-specialize from “I am an idiot” than to consciously specialize into “I am a genius.”

This is because when our POV is full of “I am an idiot,” it’s difficult for a new inspiration to reach the page. You can think of this as a white page filled with many many many many sentences of black letters: “I am an idiot” times 1,000,000,000,000. It’s easier to melt away those black letters and then fill the blank page with new inspiration.

We don’t even have to melt all 1,000,000,000,000 mentions of the “I am an idiot” inspiration. We can melt just one of them. And because of that melting, a teeny tiny space will be created on the blank page. That blank page is where we can get in touch with the storyteller. 

Another reason it’s easier to consciously de-specialize than to consciously specialize is that the conscious specialization part, often, isn’t even necessary.

For example, once a person has de-specialized from “I am an idiot,” that person doesn’t necessarily need to try very hard to adopt a new inspiration that says “I am a genius.” It’s not necessary to choose a specialization to fill the empty page, because simply by removing “I am an idiot” as the one and only reality, the person will become a person who can be both an idiot and a genius.

Attempting to specialize in a “good” way isn’t necessarily always good, in that any obsession with “good” comes with resistance against the “not good.”

For example, in an attempt to specialize into “I am a genius,” a person might fall into the trap of “Gosh I am so terrified that I’m an idiot.” In fact, this is exactly what happens when we don’t know what POV specializations we have, exactly. It’s like I mentioned in the previous post: talking about sickness while claiming to want health, talking about how bad the rich people are while claiming to want money, talking about how much one fears relationships while claiming to deserve something better.

For these reasons, it's easier to consciously de-specialize than to consciously specialize. Also, de-specialization from undesired inspirations has fewer side effects. Moreover, once one has de-specialized from undesired inspirations (I am an idiot, I keep getting sick, I don’t deserve money, I’m the person who keeps getting cheated on), the reality of the blank page becomes so true (a.k.a. “I just know”), a lot of the specialization processes just happen spontaneously and without the clinginess of obsession.

That last part is because we come to know the existence of the storyteller so much that… It kinda doesn’t matter. Truly, it doesn’t matter. 

For example, if one day I appear like an idiot in front of a crowd, so what? For the person whose POV is specialized with “I am an idiot,” it will be a terrifying experience that touches their very core identity. However, for someone whose POV is neutral and/or the POV says “the storyteller takes care of me,” it really doesn’t matter. Due to my appearing to be an idiot, I might get to meet the love of my life. Or I might get hired by someone who only hires idiots (because that makes that person feel better about themselves; it’s possible), which leads to making me a ton of money, which leads me to retire at age 21. Or some such thing. The story could go in any direction.

The point is that these relative experiences—rich/poor, healthy/sick, idiot/genius—are just experiences. They are scenes in a story. But when we’re specialized in a way that we identify with one side very strongly, we keep turning the individual scenes into the theme and meaning of our lives. We suffer while claiming that we don’t want suffering.

Hence I will focus more on de-specialization than specialization in the next many posts. (However, in the end, de-specialization and specialization go together. Existence itself is skewed in the direction of specialization rather than de-specialization. That is why the big specializations that we’ve put as the foundation, at the beginning of this worldview, are critical. We cannot truly speak of that which doesn’t exist.)

The worldview tag is best read in this order. The later posts build on the earlier posts.