I deliberately began with the lowercase i. For nuance. Not for the dense.
This is a twin to another article you will find as you read on.
Preamble
i had this theory, which i became more certain as of recent; some people think too much, some people feel too much. Some people become afraid to feel, some people become afraid to think. Some people even confuse their thoughts and feelings. "Mixed feelings", "chaotic thoughts", familiar phrases indicating a dysfunctional or dysregulated nervous system. Part biological, part psychological (this will be its own article some day), entirely a common human experience, no matter who it is. Does one have to exist at the expense of the other? The food for thought, and the fruits of thought, and the cultivation of each, occurs hand in hand with the force of feeling and emotion, the sensory and meaning. There is a false dichotomy between "introverts" and "extroverts", a convenient label vis-a-vis the realities of introspection and extrospection; the background of which is simply what feels safe for an individual, vs. where one is known, seen and heard, faces a disconnect. (How these two separate, that's a subject of past traumas and wounds which we shall not discuss here, or anytime soon). We cannot have a space for one being disconnected from the other in a separate space as it fragments our psyche, where feeling and thinking are internally divorced within ourselves. It forms a fault line where the cracks in our personality will take shape; i traced those lines by the pen in my hand before and found that the light which leaks through is potent, even pure, but the shadows that are projected are equally potent, even if puerile. Neither can nor should be concluded as right or wrong, good or bad, both are equal parts of the true; any conclusion can only be defined by the beginning and ending, much like an elephant right where it stands, is known only after seeing its whole from trunk to tail.
The entire idea of the essay of which this article is a part of was broken into two, mainly about reconciling the philosophical and psychological, between "cognition" and "meta-cognition", in order to break the paralysis of analysis in thought and feeling, and also to examine and recognise what are the forces at play which drove apart thinking and feeling, as if they were two separate parts of one human being. To put it briefly and simply, there is a false dichotomy about human knowledge and the human mind, left-brain/right-brain belongs to the dustbin yesterday. As science has only begun to catch up, we need to stop and think-AND-feel (recognise) because science is only now discovering and studying that the heart has a little brain of neurons which works within its own network to regulate pulse, emotions and thoughts and even decision making can be influenced, as the heart has its own supply of some hormones (I will not reveal here as this is not an article about biology). A large portion of the communication through the vagus nerve that connects to the brain and the heart, actually comes from the heart itself. This was not news to some of us who believe and recognise that the heart can "think" and "remember" and "see" and "hear". To some others, maybe this redefines new windows or doors to studying consciousness, or even memory, or free will.
But i did not want to rely merely on scientific theories and findings without actually having some real experience collected by myself, following the Goethean way, instead of Newton. Scriptural basis, lived experience and examination, critical thinking and observation, both intellectually and spiritually, all would have to align before I had the courage to write something like this without need to explain and defend. The heart can and does think, in some ways we can't really explain in scientific methods, but is declared in faith according to revelation. Why we don't know and don't rely and use this fact, there are many reasons, there has also to be the root causes.
Until i was sure and certain, this article was left unfinished until i realised what I walked through in two summer moons gave me an eye-opening episode of learning how to give without abandoning oneself, beneath how to sacrifice without losing oneself, lost in search of purpose, or meaning. Hence I walk through the thoughts that gave me the words with which to complete this article which began as a pensive reflection, also as a marked chapter in my life after coming full circle to close the loop. I have decided to include my experiences in rediscovering and reconciling thought and feeling as part of the whole matter in this article as a pre-amble providing some basis and context on my personal study, for whomever may benefit, or risk misuse at their own peril.
One would either-or be an avoidant/anxious individual (and these two "attachment" dynamics can co-exist within one individual) depending on which aspect they face, from which position they stand within themselves in the two self-created false premises of being. The distance between the mutual existence of the two seemingly opposite polarities, creates what I call, the gap of incoherence - between thinking or feeling - in a human being. It shows up as inconsistency, avoiding accountability or responsibility, amongst other things. What appears as immature is often the result of that poorly developed, fragmented psyche which no one can heal without doing the inner and shadow work by themselves. Otherwise still, one can only be guided, or led, only if they allow themselves to be vulnerable enough beyond the protective clutch of their ego that has carried them with pride through survival for the larger part of their lives.
"You can (try to) guide a horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink."
If the dimension of ego is large in comparison to the capacity of the heart and the soul, not necessarily to say that the ego was inflated, but rather maybe the capacity of the heart and the soul was diminished, or restrained, even stymied instead, it can be a tough ask to get someone to go to the limits of their ego and let go of survivor's pride (the opposite of survivor's guilt) - not honour or adaptive pride - and i don't mean the term in the positive sense at all. (This is my own coining of a term which happens to demonstrate I nearly never write by AI at all and my definitions certainly do not necessarily align with what the online mainstream definitions will say, biopolitically -not on Foucault's terms- at least)
Creative Commons
Dimensionality gives us a foundation, a structure of thinking of sorts, with which to understand that there will always be more that we do not yet know, compared to what we know, through which we can map our venture from the known into the unknown - which is the very growth curve of knowledge itself - both for things beyond ourselves and within ourselves. The inner meanings and the outer reality, can be even diametrically opposite, from which the matter called the truth of a person, or any matter at all, can be found, or arrived upon. Where feeling and thinking can (or cannot) integrate, there it is found the complete wholeness of a person (broken / fragmented or not). Whether we find both in synchrony will tell us whether we are broken, fragmented, or whole in harmony with ourselves.
The image above is at best a 2-dimensional, flattened perspective, but to look at it in a three-dimensional, even four-dimensional reality will require a vastly more precise yet more subtle understanding of our human condition, but that is another article by itself, relying much more on subjects studied from faith (revealed knowledge) instead of purely, utterly modern, philosophical and psychological language, which only arrives at the doorstep of our mystery.
I procrastinated on writing this article (which was meant to be a twin to another article you will later encounter as you read) because i was myself in chaos, after juggling between what were my feelings and what were originally belonging to someone else - but i treated as mine - with empathy, in a bid to understand another, feeling them and not just thinking about them, according to their capacity and limits to encompass their whole being, also stretching my capacity as thin as poor man's butter on a thin slice of dry sourdough.
Yes it was that poor and meager an imagery.
All chaos and drama kills whatever sense of humour I would keep reserved and freely given for my inner circles and used sparingly for my public persona. Yes, i do have a sense of humour although that does not always necessarily get portrayed on this blog, yet. But picture how much effort I had pulled out of myself, that all I could manage for wry humour / sarcasm was a self-deprecation as I filled myself with blame while trying to return to my whole being, my authentic genuine self once again. Not to say that there was a time I was never authentic or genuine, I try to keep myself real with all the people I relate with, equal parts serious and equal parts jovial, funny, but a time for this, and a time for that.
Much, much thinner, by at least 10 orders of magnitude!!
In a way, i was guilty to myself of self-abandonment, trying to know another through their own standards and dictionary of means and experience, where it seems i thought i found a "third way" - non-judgementally - between the right-and-wrong extremes, focused on finding truth, certainty, but the outcome determined that there wasn't a way at all. Just an illusion created from vulnerability and insecurity that sat atop years of wounds i did not create, the price of which i paid for with myself at stake. There in that space I could not fully and truly be myself, authentically, but i could be present as this small part of myself for as much space as was afforded to me, for there never was truly any room for me to take space to begin with. The third way does exist, but it is not in the way I had initially figured. The third way can be walked, the way i went through was a lost cause from the get-go but I thought I could fly through it even with broken wings of fear and hope.
Between reality and potential, between possibility and plausibility (what is reasonable and probable) there was a denial of the self-truth and self-image i carried within myself. To accommodate another soul, I had basically (at my own ignorance) separated thought from feeling, as it seems to be the way for many people nowadays, to try to understand their realm of being, so to speak, to attempt to walk with them in their shoes, and see if i can trace their footprints in the sands of time. I separated my own analysis of patterns from my experience of the meanings that I uncovered. So engrossed was i in that experience that i nearly abandoned my own identity, because i dived in (deigned) to adapt and comprehend as to what the other was running headlong into, chained to the roots, to save someone drowning by the shore. The more i felt, the more irrational it became, the more i thought, the more illogical it became. Things and words no longer made sense, it became non-sense-ical, in many senses of the word. Rhetoric was broken, the poetic was butchered, nuance was completely lost. All but NOTHING could be understood in that quagmire. What happened to all the analysis and observations I had collected along this path of mine? i chucked it aside and labelled it "EGO", because i thought it was not my identity but my pride that was stopping me from embracing the experience whole. Therein lay the fatal flaw. All the disconnection, essentially between thinking and feeling, became elbow room for gross, wilful misinterpretation, and malignant misunderstanding. It would not necessarily be out of malice, just out of gross incompetence and ineptitude. All levels of abstract thinking and feeling together became jumbled up in one hot chaotic mess that was burning with still-smoldering ash with dark clouds flashing and thundering overhead, threatening obliteration the longer i stayed. I climbed out of it with all my clothes scorched and my skin charred black, my eyes blurred and my head burning in fever, and then shedding them after a hot bath, and then just as quickly clarity returned to my tired eyes, glistening from staring hard through the veils in a torrential rain.
How did I go through such a horrifying hellscape in my mind and in my own soul - to the point that I found myself in a dream almost facing the wrong direction; till the wind blew and the real direction was reminded to me - i wonder and i will probably forever wonder carrying the embers of those moments unless i figure out why the hell i survived that long in time. It was like a replay of everything before in little more than two moons, balled up into a single divine fist knocking on the doors of my heart, between my ego and my soul. I could make neither heads nor tails in all the chaos and confusion, which was like a torture in its last seven suns.
And at that moment something clicked in place, or more like, snapped back into place like a bone or a joint being reset.
There in that space was where I realised that there was a fragmentation between what I should always have known as the two twin faculties of equal, mutually dependent cognitive processes of knowing and learning as one coherent whole. It was in that space of separating my feelings from my thoughts, my "intuition" from my better judgement, my reasoning from my rational self that I realised, all along whether through self-abandonment and betrayal, whether from beyond or from myself, that I realised at some point in modern life we all have been separating what should have originally and always have been one whole. When i could make neither heads nor tails, squinting through that headache that was when I saw it whole, blurred, but whole, beginning and end, that I stayed as long as i needed to comprehend. I could have cut short the lesson, but the experience would not have been as deep as it got, that i could safely say, when "thought" met "felt", within myself, a sense and meaning I never truly quite grasped returned to me whole. In addition to that, there was a fundamental, almost axiomatic truth which I had kept at a distance which I had learned some time ago; while the ego can only grow (or more like, evolve and transform) by breaking itself and being reborn, like a struggle of breaking out of a cocoon to develop wings that could truly fly, the (core, whole) identity cannot change its base or its position, at least not without the alchemy of fire (and this would be a separate subject altogether) cast within the right crucible or mould, with the hammer of truth on the anvil of the soul. (I am NOT subscribing to Freudian psychological theory although I use similar-sounding words.)
While dimensionality provided structure, of knowing, depth or duration forced us to require and adopt a system, of meaning. It is to combine both when we say, we recognise.
Now then that we have identified that space where both belong, can we begin to explore the core of the matter at hand.
The integration of knowledge and information yields meaning, and so goes together with the necessity of integration of logic with emotion, thinking and feeling, for understanding and wisdom to live in a human being who has embodied this balance, and is therefore something to do with accountability, with the meaning of oneself, one's raison-d'être. Purpose is something derived from duty and direction, something related to responsibility which we will explore as we traverse this line of thought layer by layer. So it is not about being dogmatic or pragmatic, but to combine both in a state of knowing, or recognising, i.e. an aspect of gnosis. This is touching upon the realm of experienced knowledge interfacing with lived reality, or living knowledge and experienced reality, one could also say, depending on the position one takes as the observer, from outside, or from within. One does not preclude nor negate the other.
In a nutshell, the balance of rights and responsibilities in the duties and due diligences of one's role(s) is what we frequently miss, when we do not have a solid and sound integration within ourselves.
In its deeper sense, we do not truly know anything; we only discover, unveil, learn and we remember - we have memories from experiencing human (or well, some may consider this not to preclude divinely inspired) knowledge - the essence of it is eternal and subsists all throughout human history and cultural memory since the beginning at the source and origin. Our collective understanding of knowledge has shifted throughout history, but there is a severely limited access to the endless treasure troves of knowledge now, owing to the rise of INI/FFK. (I'm so lazy to type the entire thing but that link takes you to where I mentioned it in full)
But taking from the ways polymathic individuals have managed to integrate different domains of knowledge according to the key motivating factors and/or sense of purpose and meaning together in their being, through thematic mapping or categorisation, i.e. they organised the knowledge they had according to not hierarchy but a maybe a toolbox of skills and tools of knowledge, integrated into an internal map for the different meanings and purposes (a little bit on that later) that they've associated with the things they learned and remember. The purpose of knowing so much of such this or that knowledge was often to help assist people to speak better, act precisely, think clearer, organise better, to help someone do or achieve something, typically to some level of minimal competency towards excellence, which I might say is effectiveness and efficiency in balance and harmony. Purpose is defined with action and meaning is proven with the result that is built upon the intention. It is a combination of honesty and sincerity, where both sides together build something constructive, not extractive or exploitative. The reason much of scientific or mathematical development into expertise giving both breadth and depth in the various fields of knowledge started out from addressing a need in society, according to the different cultures we can observe in community.
For a quick example, we could look no further than the origins of Algebra (Al-Jabr) from Al-Khawarizmi from whose namesake the word Algorithm was derived. The initial need for calculating (relatively) complex simultaneous mathematical equations was first made for the divisions of inheritance from the revealed, scriptural laws of farāiď, where we first see the mathematical representation where more than one or two things need to be simultaneously true (cue into holding two truths at the same time in emotional maturity.) When meaning and purpose is divergent or not unified in our internal map of knowledge, it can create a chaotic mental image inside us, instead of a coherent mindscape. The same thing happens when we fail to integrate our knowing with both logic and emotion, through thinking and feeling as though they were two entirely separate, mutually exclusive and independent factors of the human psyche. We subvert the rightful place of the natural pattern of the interdependency (not co-dependency) of our internal faculties of knowledge when we fail to recognise the order and system of meaning and purpose in ourselves, sometimes even inverting them in our nervous confusion and mismatch. This is something that happens usually when we try to synthesise in the Hegelian dialetical sense, treating feeling and thinking as two antithetical factors. Heads-or-tails become confused within ourselves and we think of something in a certain order but forget how to feel with the same order instead, going for what is familiar e.g. intents, and vested interests in goals and outcomes first, over impact, and voluntary inquiry into logic and method. It is the chaotic soup of not asking the questions of Who, What, Why, Where, and When, and How, in the correct orders for whichever endeavour we attempt to undertake. Sometimes, the Why matters first instead of the How or collectively the What, Where and When of the Who. Much of synthesising in the Hegelian, dialectical sense asks of the person What, before the Why and How first, which is counterintuitive in the realm of emotion and feeling because an underlying logic or method, a rationale, is given priority without the reason,Why, where the Who operates when what needs to be done is satisfied first.
Now while it sounds really simple, which it is, but by no means is it an easy thing to do especially today, proven by the insane amounts of commentary on theories on anxiety and avoidance in doing real work, personally or relationally, when the way we have been educated in the culture of knowledge currently widely instilled in the modern environment becomes incompatible with our cultural memory and upbringing. It requires going against the grain of what we consider "common-sense" which is really a myth (look up the "Myth of Common Sense" please.) It is one thing to explain and deconstruct our condition but it is another thing altogether to actually get to work on it.
This can be a jarring, disturbing sensation for someone who has not yet granted themselves a solid, grounded self-identity and self-image, balanced in a closed loop of order and priority, much like being given a map to read but with unclear, or sometimes no immediate clue of, purpose or direction, the why of where they are going. In thinking and feeling, in communication, this relates to how we use and interpret words and sentences according to the priorities and capacities that influence or dictate choices. There are even observations on the many theories being in fact modeled after a white-washed pair of lenses of the middle-class in the modern economy.
Sometimes we speak with a conclusion at the beginning, sometimes at the end of the sentence, the difference makes whether one would, either way, (mis)construe the food for thought as an explanation, or an argument. Both require different modes of reading, one with patient curiosity, and one through pensive certainty. This is to speak nothing of erudition - it is just a state - existentially; a person who has lost curiosity in exchange for absolute (or stubborn) certainty (well, actually self-confidence), or traded this same brand of certainty for a pathologically insatiable curiosity, locks themselves away from any path towards progressing down intellectual or emotional maturity. The truly erudite know even with both eyes closed in blind faith, the journey of knowledge will never be complete, and is therefore immune to boasting or bragging about knowledge, even if he appears so, to minds of lesser capacity to discuss ideas, only things or people. Actually to this lesser capacity, self-confidence can be mistaken easily for certainty. I know because I have done that mistake before too. It is a common stage, or phase, of all human experience. Denying it does no good for anyone.
"Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss things/events, great minds discuss ideas."
- i care not enough to remember exactly who said this but this sentence tells us of the shift from cognition, to meta-cognition. In between is the process where the balance is struck, which I will call, syncognition, a unified flow of the two in balance. One where there is not too much inclination towards thinking which runs rampant, or a self-obsession rather than true wisdom. In a sense, wisdom is the bravery to recognise those two with courage to hold both as necessary and true at the same time.
This can be simplified as thinking of both circumstances and consequences at the same time, both in the short and long term. But it is not that simple.
Because the thinking process for considering long and short term thinking - considering goals and the patterns and models we rely on to achieve those goals in thinking, BOTH objectively and subjectively - requires us to identify and recognise reality and circumstances at the same time, there is another element here which is the peri-cognitive environment, the framework under which is yoked the process of thinking about something itself.
While careful thinking requires one to carefully think (duh) what is within one's control, and what exactly lies just outside the realm of one's control, conscious thinking necessitates the premise of those thoughts to be critically considered, spatio-temporally. In a saying, "begin with the end in mind" is the only reliable way that the modern world offers this valuable insight into the circumstances of thinking itself. I mean to say, one can do something with care, while also not being critical at the same time. Thinking about feelings is a trap when feeling one's thoughts is not done. Does one come first or second? Chicken-and-egg question. Pointless to a certain extent, as the true answer escapes that mode of black-or-white questioning. Care cannot be sustained without critique, critique cannot survive without care.
One may begin and carry a thought, only to discover confusion and lack of clarity or doubts or even chaos, precisely from the lack of understanding of the systems and structures beneath and within which said thought occurs. This is rampant amongst those of us who do not yet know how to ask the right questions, the most meaningful ones, or often due to feeling too much while thinking, they simply do not have the wisdom (well, courage) to acknowledge the existence of such questions. Alternatively, there are also some of us who could not yet understand the answers within us, often due to having too many thoughts while feeling, simply lacking the knowledge to decode the meaning behind each conflicting thought seemingly clashing against our feelings and emotions.
Courage can be said to be a sort of bracing where emotions are involved, without ignoring fear, for courage is not the absence of fear, but the willingness to act in spite of it, but it is with the wisdom and bravery combined, with which it becomes easier to acknowledge a few things: fear, is anticipation of pain that has yet to happen. Confusion, is pain with no direction.
Anxiety, which is an outward form of internal avoidance, is really a sort of drowning in ones feelings unresolved by the separation of thoughts that fail to address or question the very feelings and emotions they are associated with addressing, or attempting to address. One can say there is a relative excess of thinking and logic that drives one to act compared to emotion and feeling that has yet to be accessed properly. So to speak, there is a sort of incapability or incompetence on the inner work to confront the truth beneath all that over-thinking. It is from an excess of the sensory with the perceived absence of meaning.
Avoidance, is the complete absenteeism or the escaping, running away from observing thought or feeling, instead replacing it with the mechanical, a sort of going through the motions, instead of focusing on the meaningful. It is turning away from oneself (not in the way the Sufis give up the ego) due to the internal anxiety of lacking the tools and skills of thought to address the emotions and feelings present in that space. To confront those emotions and feelings successfully, their inner work requires admitting an inadequacy and incapacity. So to speak, there is a relative excess of feeling and emotion compared to thought and logic. It is a form of self-betrayal that is its own kind of choice to not make a choice, a choice to not feel what needs to be felt. Both dynamics end up doing the same thing with their inner world but in different ways. We should be naming this anxious-avoidant dynamic a coping mechanism by now, as they are not much too different now as we examine.
The motivations may be similar, in that both have a disconnection between themselves and what they feel and think, but one is attempting to address it with all the tools and skills they have been practicing but without a proper map, and the other simply forgoes the whole affair, almost to a level of apathy. There is a clear point where the anxious individual differs from the avoidant, where the anxious individual carries more empathy and is more prone to question oneself and fearing their own role and dynamic in conflicts and disagreements. But that is also its own problem, fear, not freedom. In the language of cultivation, we recognised one lower state of the ego, in arabic we say nafs al-ammarah, a self-focused and centered level of being, concerned with self-soothing, often appearing as "self-regulation", and another is struggling with itself, even to the point of gaslighting itself at times, doubtful or unwilling to give so much leeway and weight to their feelings and emotions, fearful of their lower ego's fires, and fearful of being unworthy and abandoned because of its lowliness, and in arabic we say this is a nafs al-lawwamah, the intermediate stage before the beginning of some enlightenment. One is passive, the other is active, but for both the inner and outer worlds have been fragmented, divorced, such that there is no unity or shall we say common ground between the feelings and the thoughts, the logic and the emotions that a person can feel. Something is acting bravely upon fear, and another is reacting based off it without wisdom. There couldn't be courage here yet, only choices that lead to either progress or regression. This does not hierarchically place one above the other, that is a fundamentally wrong notion that must be discarded; they are merely part of a spectrum between the ending of darkness and the beginning of enlightenment, reaching towards inspiration.
Make no mistake, in both anxiety and avoidance, each action or decision is actively or passively its own form of choice. The difference is whether the cost of that choice is outsourced or over-compensated, socially, or relationally we might say, within systems of meaning and knowledge that may well truly not be our own to begin with, but one imposed upon us that we use differently at different stages of life, be it socially, communally, economically, or psychologically, philosophically, then politically so as a collective state of being and consciousness. We either oppress others, or we oppress ourselves, and we really are being unjust or unfair to ourselves either way.
Perhaps the answer lies in between the ego and the soul (haha, Faith: 1, Freud: 0), where the heart has to be stabilised first upon truths that at first seem to conflict with our perceived identity (well, id/ego, fine, if i stop bashing Freud a little bit), but really is a conflict between a self-imposed self-limiting identity vs. our self-image and limited self-expression (cue knowledge schema vs. language schema). Thoughts do not begin where feelings end, nor conversely so, and they never have to be that way, but our (modern, capitalistic) world sometimes forces or influences us to pick one or the other. Learning to embrace and integrate both could be a lifetime struggle, but unless we open ourselves up to swim (or drown) in the twin oceans of inner and outer knowledge, we cannot reconcile between the two mental (intellectual) and emotional (well, spiritual) faculties of our being without first letting go of pride which exists within ego, or arrogance which exists within knowledge that rests with its origins in the soul. In other words, what is required here is humility, towards one-self, and no other. Sometimes it's okay to admit that we are the worst of ourselves, that we are the problem, because in that itself is a solution called submission and surrender, that then allows us to intentionally embrace what appears to us as fear, but is really non-acceptance of pain that has not yet happened, in other words, the rejection of a lack of confidence or uncertainty. Survival, the nemesis of Growth. For the uninitiated, this is a trap of perpetual tragedy, where the demons of self-pity and self-sabotage thrive. The problem with the fragmented psyche is this loss of identity, or obscuring of the identity. From there one's role, responsibility (and rights) become vaguely understood, defined, and recognised. The roles that we have played, how familiar they have become to us, the capacity and all things associated with those, tolerances, biases, become hard-wired into our nervous systems, creating neural maps across different stages of life, training patterns at different points, and these are always more often than not incoherent. A child parentified forced to manage the emotions and reactions, behaviours and outcomes of their elders, a teenager infantilised, gaslighted or manipulated to distrust and doubt, to question and even neglect one's own reality, without a concrete model of being to build their sense of self and identity upon, and eventually an elder youth forced to survive, carries the nervous patternings that are unsuitable for the role of an elder, or a functional adult that can carry oneself and lead, all before finding one's true authentic being. From the same problem also lies the true root cause of procrastination according to a businessman: procrastiation happens when the actions that we need to undertake arare misaligned with the beliefs that we have over ourselves, that is to say, we cannot sustain actions which directly conflict with how we see ourselves. This nervous system mismatch is when our body has yet to catch up with our mind that has only begun to alter the patterns we have built our self-image upon.
A syncognitive state where thinking (and feeling) and being able to observe and be aware of both the logic and emotions behind them, essentially a cognitive + metacognitive balance cannot be adopted or entered unless one of two things happen, which may be in due order or independent of each other. The state where the ego is free from its own shackles, where one is in a state of non-fear yet non-courage either, where everything just is, where identity does not influence actions towards results, where one can just be, that flow state can come from switching off the ego and all its noise, and then subsequently performance excels without effort as everything is made to happen in the moment as it unfolds, even as mistakes or obstacles come through, whatever may be adjusted or controlled (or rather influenced, to various extents utilised, manoeuvred or manipulated) will be responded to appropriately and adequately, aptly. Alternatively, this "flow" state can be transformed and evolved into a mode that can be entered or exited at will, as long as one learns how to shift into that mode by aligning thoughts, feelings, being, all together as one triad. At this point, the phrase "Mind, Body and Soul" may come across as the familiar thing to say, but we are not yet talking about action, but rather the pre-requisite internal-external alignment that makes excellent action possible in the first place, and that is when the heart is able to hold both the ego and the soul as equal entities each in their own positive feedback loops to illuminate and enlighten and polish each other mutually. This sounds simple like some technique to be applied as easily as to how a muscle would work, and be done with it.
But that's the biggest illusion we can cast upon ourselves, because this requires a level of inner knowledge and awareness, consciousness of so much vulnerability and intimacy unto one's own true self and identity, that most people chicken out of the rigorous demands of such cultivation, whether at the start or even halfway through. If it were only that easy, there would be lesser conflicts (maybe wars, haha but nope, that's a matter of alignment within natural ally-enemy contrasts and therefore a totally different story or article on its own) and almost no infighting as the taming of self-interests and harmonisation of which would be far easier and more widespread. Or maybe it is already happening at some levels, limited in scope or expanded across shared awareness or consciousness, but the reader (and writer) who might be here who is fighting against their inner turmoil and internal conflicts is just finding their way to truly reach or join the ranks of their respective circles like such that each effort brings one towards progress, elevation and a much better state than before, and perpetually so finds more imperfections and endless difficulty in continually facing themselves and rising above and against. So let one such as i not be fooled into thinking to have already done the inner work, for the moment you think you have done it, you fall into a trap created by your own ego, as i have observed many who stall and fell on their personal journeys before and still, and have paid different prices, often at the cost of themselves or someone else, or both, and many too who managed to break that trap and continue forward doing the inner work.
The grass is not greener on the other side.
The grass is greener where you water it.
I thank the humble reader for making it up to this point. Well done.