"At dawn, when you have trouble getting out of bed, tell yourself: 'I have to go to work — as a human being. What do I have to complain of, if I’m going to do what I was born for — the things I was brought into the world to do? Or is this what I was created for? To huddle under the blankets and stay warm?' So you were born to feel “nice”? Instead of doing things and experiencing them? Don’t you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And you’re not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren’t you running to do what your nature demands? You don’t love yourself enough. Or you’d love your nature too, and what it demands of you." This is a passage from book 5 of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, and its a message that neatly encapsulates the argument I have been constructing. Recently, my posts have focused on the mental and emotional discomfort that arises from contradictions. Whether that is contradiction in the ideas that structure your worldview (Hegels dialectic), or contradictions in your behavior and belief (Cognitive Dissonance Theory) My last post concluded with the sentiment that growth and improvement requires that you face this discomfort: you will experience consequences whether you face it or turn away, and only facing it will facilitate growth. When we turn away from the discomfort, we are emotionally and mentally staying in bed and disturbing away from the work that makes us human, our nature, our purpose.

Welcome to the community. If you’re new here, I just wanted to take a moment to introduce myself and offer some support. This is my second Skool account, and I’ve spent a good amount of time learning how the platform works and how to navigate it effectively. Starting out in a new community can feel overwhelming, especially when you’re trying to understand the structure, tools, and best practices. As a coach, I’m here to help make that process easier for you. If you need guidance, clarity, or support as you get started, don’t hesitate to reach out. You don’t have to figure everything out alone. I’m always happy to help answer questions, share insights, and point you in the right direction so you can move forward with confidence. If you’d like to connect with me directly, you can reach me through the links below: Telegram: https://t.me/Arianna_digital_solutions WhatsApp: https://wa.me/19892852799 Welcome once again, and wishing you success as you begin your journey here! 🚀

In my last post I mentioned that the Antithesis stage of dialectic can be uncomfortable. Confronting contradictions can be not only painful, but dangerous to protective mental structures, whether those structures are holding us back or not. My explanation of dialectic phases may have given off an air of linearity: like its a natural progression from antithesis to synthesis. But life doesn't usually work so cleanly, and I alluded to that in my brief discussion about my changing concept of Christianity. Each of the differing aspects I listed were realizations that came at different points of my education: Antithesis is not a one stop shop, it often feels like a boomerang. The discomfort that comes at the antithesis stage is reminiscent of Cognitive Dissonance (Ref: ,https://youtu.be/HcI7M23YCLM?si=LR0m33z6XoyAZcEW) a term in psychology coined by Leon Festinger that refers to the discomfort experienced when a persons actions do not align with their beliefs or when concurrently held beliefs are contradictory. For example "I value health, and I don't exercise as much as I want" the behavior is misaligned with the value. Or "I believe we should always respect our elders, and I believe respect is earned" those are contradictory attitudes towards respect when you meet an old person who embodies the traits you have no respect for. While the thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic process is a philosophical tool for situating ourselves within the Absolute, I view Cognitive Dissonance Theory as a version of the dialectic which centers the self. Cognitive Dissonance Theory offers several paths a person can take when they encounter discomfort: 1. Changing behavior (going to gym, changing diet) 2. Updating beliefs (going to therapy if there were some unhealthy belief about the self like an eating disorder driving the person to obsess over exercise) or 3. justifying behavior to temporarily alleviate the discomfort (at least I'm not as unhealthy as X). Or numbing to alleviate discomfort (drugs, alcohol, risk taking)

In my last post I mentioned the Hegelian dialectic in my explanation of his unifying philosophy. Specifically, I said that his overarching idea of the Absolute invites to engage with the world dialectically. What that actually means is what I'll tackle here. Hegel was a German philosopher, so his terms are quite technical and don't have EXACT English translations. So, for the sake of our discussion I'll use Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis and I'll use a coin to illustrate. The Thesis is an initial idea we have of something. As a mother of a young child, I have been going through Identification books and there is a picture of a silver coin with someones profile on it. The Thesis might be coins are silver, used for money, and have the profile of a person on them. The Antithesis is when the internal limitations of our idea, the contradictions, become evident. So far my Baby has only ever seen a picture of a coin: circular, silver, with a profile. Eventually, she will encounter a real coin, and that coin might be copper in color and have a relief of a wagon, but when she flips it over it will have a profile like she would normally expect. When we tell her this is a coin, she will be confused: her concept does not include copper and non-profile reliefs. The Synthesis stage is where one is able to grasp the unity of opposition and overcome the previously limited concept. When we tell our daughter this is a coin, she will have to undergo a process of updating her initial concept to include what was 5 seconds ago contradictory to the concept of a coin. Her new understanding of what a coin is, is now more complete than it wasbeliefs. Coins have a heads and tails side, and they come in different colors. Engaging in the dialectic is a practice in philosophy, and it can be applied to much more complex ideas in which we are experiencing the Antithesis phase. Unlike the coin example, most of the concepts that matter to our lives are not so simply updated when contradictory information challenges our perspectives.

Hegel, who lived 1770-1831, is notoriously one of the most difficult philosophers to read. Likely, this is because his philosophy aimed to unify what seemed inherently incompatible. So why did I choose to write about Hegel today? Because we are living, at least I am living, in a world with so much contradiction and tension that it is disorienting. On our day to day there are people purporting to have the truth about this or that, they all contradict each other, the figures themselves seem hypocritical, and it contributes to the flurry already plaguing our mental space. Hegel's philosophy stands out to me today because the distress we are feeling in the face of contradiction and confusion supports the notion of our minds being unified with the world we are observing. Hegel wrote with the intent to unify everything in to the Absolute, attempting to solve the one-many problem that stretches back to Plato. The essence of the One-many problem is this: Ideals, or perfection, are the concepts and structures which govern Reality, logic, and our perception. While the material/distinct world must participate in this One-logic, often referred to as God, to carry out its distinction. For example a tree is a tree because it fits in to the definition we have for tree... the definition is conceptual and categorical, but the material tree depends on that immaterial category for us to perceive it as a tree. You may have heard of Kant's concept of apriori knowledge, a truth that is known through pure reason, by existing within the immutable logic of Reality. For Kant, it is this apriori structure which makes experience possible but is distinct from knowledge which is a posteriori and requires experience to attain. Returning to the tree example, the a priori knowledge is that the tree can be categorized, while the actual categorization of the tree requires a posteriori knowledge of the object through experience. Where Kant sees the attainment of knowledge as a stepwise process with distinct aspects and knowable knowledge as limited/discrete, Hegel's philosophy seeks to overcome those limits, identifying the logic of the universe as all encompassing rather than fragmented.