Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamou  John… if I understand you correctly, in the “passion philosophy #1,” the activity is the originator of passion… while in “passion philosophy #2,” we are the originator… |
According to philosophy #1, passion is the result of two forces working in tandem: Our internal sense of purpose, and our external actions. In other words, passion is a *partnership* between our motivations and our objectives.
The reason we feel a sense of purpose when doing a particular activity may be attributed to a higher power, or to our own enlightened selves, depending upon your point of view. But the key thing about philosophy #1 is that passion is directive. Tasks for which we feel a strong "passion" are calling out to us.
According to philosophy #2, passion is a malleable state of mind. Using this philosophy, passion is not a partnership, but rather a unilateral decision made within the conscious mind of the individual.
Quote:
If I am correct in this assumption… and if we take for granted that “passion” is a great facilitator… why not combine passion philosophy #1 and #2 and double the facilitating effect of passion…???
|
Interesting idea.
Quote:
As an example… I have been counseling and motivating people for decades… now, it is easy for me to be passionate about that type of work because I love it… however if I also find the subject that I am working with intense and passionate… I will be at least twice as effective…
.
|
I can see the value in this. But it may still be helpful for those who adhere to philosophy #1 to recognize the difference between activities which call to our inner propensities and activities for which passion requires its own special effort. -- Not that anyone would fail to tell the difference!
