Sorry for the gap in posting. I severely injured my back last Sunday, so any mental effort I could muster was directed toward prep for work. This is a final post in a loose series that started with this post and was followed by this one and then this one. So I invite you to go back and read those; otherwise, this post will be a little weird.
Going back to Epictetus’ first point in the Enchiridion - What is within our power, what comes from us, could also be phrased as what we are responsible for. We are responsible for our actions, so we ought to do our best to ensure the actions (our intention to act) are correct.
What do you mean by correct?
It’s a fair question. What is a correct act or intent to act? Well, one that is hopefully made more correct by the process that I have been writing about. You base your judgements on the best available information you have to hand, and you interrogate that information to assess its truth. Then you filter your impulse or movement to act through some checks.
The Three P’s
Pigliucci and Lopez, In A Handbook for New Stoics, who I have been quoting liberally from over the last three posts, formulated or distilled a process involving the following three tests (note: If you think it sounds familiar, it shares some similarity to Rotary’s 4 Way Ethical Test).
Is the impulse to act Properly Reserved?
Stoics, understanding that much is not up to us, should realise that with every impulse to act there is the chance that your action will be thwarted. So you make the decision with the knowledge and understanding that you may not get what you want, what is just, nor what is fair. So, prepare to not get bent out of shape about it.
Is the impulse to act Prosocial?
Is that impulse likely to cause harm? Does it foster community? Is it kind? ( Try, conversing on Twitter or FaceBook with this in mind). If not, then refrain from the action.
Is the impulse to act Proportionate?
Disproportinate action is likely to cause an equaly disproportionate response. How important is the action in the grand scheme of things, what might you be giving away or doing to your character in the proportionality of your response?
Pigliucci and Lopez recommend that your impulse to act should consider all these, and if not all are present, then not acting is preferable.
Some practical examples:
Interpersonal conflict:
Taking the example from last week of the “frustrated sigh” of a significant other or housemate when it comes to chores. If you judge their frustration as justified (if not their acion) then, if you’re honest with yourself, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
As I mentioned before, it’s when you think that you have been hurt/ judged unfairly that you are likley to lean toward anger. If we assume you are not responsible for failing to hangout the washing, what kind of response might pass the three P’s?
Properly reserved: I have to realise that my response may not be taken well. The other person might be extremely frustrated and not in a position to recieve my response in the intended way.
Prosocial: Trying the best to talk calmly, I recognise their frustration, advise them that I’m not responsible, or that I’m are pretty sure I’m not, but in the interests of peace, offer to hangout the washing.
Proportinate: I also want to strike a balance between seeming to react submisively (if that’s the right word) to someone’s use of anger and sounding frustrated in my own offer of help.
Sonthats done for interpersonal conflict but what about…
Inner Conflict - Anxiety
I have found the interpersonal conflict or friction much easy to handle than the false judgements I make in connection to my internal states. So I offer this example:
Being connected through Social Media for work and play has its advantages, but I do find it has the effect of triggering my anxiety.
I’d often see a post from one of my professional groups on Facebook and feel an adrenaline dump within a second. From event ( a post notification) to judgement( oh no this is bad) to reaction( checking the post to see if I need to follow up) before I could really grab hold of the thought.
So of course I have taken to trying to question the judgement - that the notification means that I probably have forgotten something or that I need/ should be doing more than I am. This forestalls some of the anxiety. But when I deem action necessary the 3 P’s can be helpful.
In the case where action is warranted; I have let something slip my mind or I have judged that I need to do some prepatory work, then:
Properly reserved: I realise that what I have decided to do may not be a quick fix nor placate my anxiety (though it mostly does).
Prosocial: I realise that if I put in a bit of effort now I will be kinder to myself and others (if I am less uptight). Or indeed I might realise that working too hard is not healthy or kind to myself and that the action can wait.
Proportional: I realise that small steps often add up to large gains, and that a little work now will prevent greater anxiety later. Or indeed, I might decide that acting now, at the end of a long week, when I’m exhausted, is disproportionate. The task can wait.
It’s a work in process.
That’s a wrap
In wrapping up this series, its worth noting that most Stoic guidebooks don’t advocate starting with judgement, but I, like Ward Farnsworth, think its a pretty important process to begin working on right from the begining. We are our choices, so we best make rational and correct ones.