Here’s how it works: Take a blank sheet of paper and draw a vertical line across that splits the sheet in two equal halves. Next, draw a horizontal line across the sheet starting at approximately 1 centimeter from below its top. This is your ‘’cross‘’…
Now try to remember all the conflict encounters you had throughout your day. In the first column of the sheet, write down all the instances in which you did the ‘right thing’ during these conflict moments. Similarly, write down all the tension situations in which you think you could do better in the other column. In order for this exercise to work, you have to be perfectly fair and impartial when you reflect back on your conflict encounters (make sure you are keeping track of them as they unfold throughout your entire day). Afterwards, ask yourself the following questions:
What am I doing? How am I doing it? Why am I doing it? Which of my (re)actions are serving solely me and which are of use both to me and my surroundings? Which actions of mine are serving all my surroundings, but not myself?
Apply these questions to all the encounters placed in any of the columns of your ‘cross’.
By answering all of these questions for each of your encounters, you will start to discover a common underlying pattern(s). This is how you will be able to identify what your general filtrations are like. And when you discover what your filtrations are like, you will also discover what your options for changing them are. This process is called ‘analysis’…
In the process of knowledge and experience accumulation, the analysis (from Greek ἀνάλυσις – to unravel, to investigate) is the mental and practical operation by which the entirety of information (such as objects, properties, processes or interrelations between objects and various phenomena) is being deconstructed into its respective comprising elements. The method of analysis complements the method of synthesis in the overall process of extracting information about an examined object’s structural arrangement.
Synthesis is the other method for examining the contents of the cross – i.e. for arriving at global conclusions about our individuality based on our interaction with the environment (behavioral features, habits, filters).
Synthesis (from Greek σύνθεσις – putting together, composition, combination) is the process by which two or more separate elements or components are incorporated into one integral whole. The process of synthesis is the opposite of the analysis (i.e. it is the opposite of deconstruction). The synthesis is a method of examination by which the separate elements are integrated into one cohesive whole, as the nature of the phenomena in question is being identified in the process. In the process of examining our lives, we are executing both methods simultaneously– we conduct an analythesis.
We examine how the whole determines what the very elements that are composing this whole are like. We are examining all the tiny fragments that provide the basis for the whole, yet none of these separate entities is being prioritized over any other such. In other words, each composing element is equally important to the overall totality. Therefore, the global integral whole is being shaped and defined by each single individuality that it is consisted of. Any change in some of these building elements leads to change in the whole.
We should keep in mind that this method of analythesis is ‘tailored’ to our holographic nature. The hologram is built in such way that the part contains the whole, just as the whole is being contained in the part as well. To put this in simpler terms, if we are doing a given thing in a certain way, we will be doing all other things in this way too – irrespectively if we are willing to accept that this is our functioning mechanism or not. To illustrate this, we usually tend to focus on the detail in such way as to arrive at global conclusions that are always being ‘in our favor’ – i.e. we elegantly avoid self-criticism by neglecting all the tiny fragments that would appear unpleasing to us. Such is the pattern behind our reluctance for change. If we often find ourselves ‘in denial’, we must start observing ourselves impartially in what other situations we are demonstrating this state. As a result, we will come to the realization that this element of ‘denying’ is reoccurring in approximately 97% of our actions, conversations or thoughts. In order to change ourselves, we must begin to think, express and act in different ways than the ones we have observed ourselves to be prone to. We can then appreciate the effort necessary for changing this single tiny and seemingly harmless element of our behavior (in this case – denial).
Example: When asked ‘’Are you hungry?’’, we can answer with the positive, non-denying ‘’I already had some food’’, instead of the dull ‘’No.’’ we are so accustomed to. Instead of saying ‘’I don’t want that’’, we can say ‘’What I want is…’’ and so on. Now it is your turn to put your cross on.