When someone apologizes and says, "I don't mean to;" typically that is exactly what they mean to do. This week, after interrupting three times, an individual said, "Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt." and then proceeded to interrupt for a fourth time; in a span of less than 10 minutes. Perhaps four interruptions is their obliviousness threshold. I wonder what their threshold is for taking responsibility? I wonder what the number is that would push them into synergistic awareness? And if they ever reach that number? Or is it more likely that once they become tangentially aware of their discourtesy, they temporarily retreat and permanently forget, thus not advancing the number to a point where it might benefit future awareness.

We all do this. With some it is, "I don't mean to argue (divisively as opposed to constructively)." With others it is, I don't mean to be critical." With still others it is, "I don't mean to rain on your parade." And with some it is, "I don't mean to belittle." With me it is, "I don't mean to lecture" AND "I don't mean to be difficult" AND (on occasion) "I don't mean to be smart (i.e. sarcastic)." And in each example, there is a degree of arrogance at play. So, I don't mean to pick on this one individual... but now that I am past bullying, my intent is to better understand synergistic awareness.

The concept of synergistic awareness applies to those, (I hope, the majority), who do acknowledge their arrogance by (at the least) "not meaning to." For those who obliviously interrupt, argue, criticize, belittle, etc., with no conscious acknowledgement, synergistic awareness will likely be interpreted as narcissistic affirmation and reflected as obliviousness. And just as one's Humanity demands occasional unintentional arrogance, it also demands varying levels of narcissistic obliviousness; which means I am guilty of both.

Simply knowing this should nudge me toward synergistic awareness. And having come to this point, I can see this thought reinforcing previous thought (from 7/6/13, 8/24/13, and 9/17/16) in which I stated that, "no single individual, that has lived in the past, is living in this moment, or will live in the future, is any more or less necessary than any other single individual." This specific thought has evolved into what I perceived as a fairly thorough analysis of why I believe this. Perhaps I need to work toward a (previously unthought) complementary and/or deeper understanding...

I believe synergistic awareness reinforces this idea of any two individuals being as necessary because it is plainly demonstrated within the practice of synergistic awareness. If synergistic awareness begins with courtesy, it probably moves from there to varying magnitudes of respect combined with sincerity, and upon reaching a symbiotic state of sincere respect, synergistic awareness approaches a perfect balance of necessity. Maximum synergistic awareness is a team sport, requiring a minimum of two players. The fact that it is not maximally achievable by one individual, makes it a nice vehicle for illustrating mutual necessity.

Perhaps this extends previous thought by identifying a starting point for mutual necessity. By paying attention to immediate external happenings and circumstance, one is confirming the impartial nature of reality, and by paying attention to another's reactions, one is gauging the appropriateness of their own actions. I strongly suspect though, that once an individual begins this practice of diligent attention, even if able to occasionally reach a symbiotic state of sincere respect, we would find that it is not the finish line; rather a new starting point.

So after widening one's circle to work toward maximum synergistic awareness becomes an ongoing habit, I believe there will be a natural progression to other beneficial practices including willing service, persistence, patience, compassion, and altruism. But I must remember that synergistic awareness can be practiced by me alone, but can only be maximized when it is mutual; and (obviously) only positively supports mutual necessity when it is mutual. So, is there a way to encourage shared synergistic awareness?? Or is it a concept that must develop from within the individual?

I am afraid that if I encouraged, it may come across as, "I don't mean to lecture, but..." I will work hard to lead by example, and I will occasionally lead by failed example, and I will forever be a student, but to compel adult learning will always be less successful than to mutually aid another, as both teacher and student. And the only way this will be accomplished is on common ground.

I am frustrated by this week's effort to come to a deeper understanding. The only addition to learning I see, is the identification of synergistic awareness as a starting point for illustrating the value of mutual necessity. The rest is redundant. But it is Friday night, and lacking a significant epiphany I may have to settle.

Which actually, may be a new thought. Perhaps my new learning for this week is to settle for personal improvement, when I determine that results are greater. In math terms, if there are 7,574,118,038 individuals each designated by a different number, and if my goal is advancement, and if improvement1 = individual1 movement + individual1 learning, and advancement = improvement1 + improvement2, and in scenario 1 I put forth x number of units of work toward improvement1 (where 1 is me) and 0 units of work toward improvement2 (where 2 is another) and in scenario 2 I put the same x number of units of work toward improvement2 and 0 units of work toward improvement1, and when I solve for advancement and find that advancement is greater in scenario 1 than in scenario 2, I am not settling for improvement1, I am choosing the most beneficial option.

So how do I determine when (or if) advancement will be greater by putting forth work units toward improvement2? I believe, when I put forth any work toward improvement2, the initial work is an olive branch to gauge willingness to learn. And I believe that when the olive branch is accepted, learning becomes mutual. An olive branch is an expenditure of effort, but it can be (and should be) minimal; as minimal as an invitation to communicate face-to-face. So if (as previously stated, where 1 is still me) improvement1 = individual1 movement + individual1 learning, and if my olive branch has been accepted, then my units of effort are doing double duty by increasing both improvement1 and improvement2, (i.e. mutual learning), thus resulting in a greater increase in advancement.

So perhaps "I don't mean to lecture" because I did not first extend an olive branch; I did not first reach out to determine potential for productive communication. And when I do not extend an olive branch, effort is more likely to become an inordinate number of units of work toward improvement2, to find that improvement2 = 0. I am better spending that effort on improvement1. But when I am able to establish productive communication, advancement has the potential to grow exponentially.

Epiphany: Offer an olive branch.
Epiphany: I must solve for Advancement.

With effort, there is always a greater depth of learning.