Today in psych class we talked about "putting the cart before the horse," a concept from the social cognitive  perspective on procrastination.

So if you've ever thought, "I'll get to that important project when I'm in the mood," you were "putting the cart before the horse," which refers to thinking that motivation leads to action.

Apparently the social cognitive theorists believe that if you wait until you're in the mood, you'll never act. So they say it is the other way around, that action increases motivation, which is a cycle that leads to success.

So instead of:

    motivation -> action

They believe:

    action -> motivation (goes up) -> success

I have had experiences that agree with this model. On the other hand, I've very much had opposite experiences. For example, taking the afternoon off to go lay in the park, then having ice cream, and upon returning home feeling so good and inspired that I finish a project I've been putting off.

Sometimes the right behavior to take is counterintuitive (go for a walk, take the day off) and that actually leads to motivation and action and success. Other times, those same behaviors are avoidant/counterproductive.

I wonder what distinctions can be found that separate adaptive play/rest from maladaptive play/rest.

One source that may be helpful, one which reminds me of the social cognitive perspective, is Antero Alli's section on First Circuit malfunctions in Angel Tech: A Modern Shaman's Guide to Reality Selection, in particular his prescription that "the first adjustment necessary to release inertia comes with a conscious choice to use comfort instead of making it a goal. This ignites the self-appreciation for turning First Gear." In other words, action can increase motivation, but the first action is a mental step, a decision that changes our relationship with inaction.

Perhaps the distinction is that when we use play/rest in restorative ways, we are using comfort as a resource, and when we run toward play/rest as avoidance, we are elevating it over what needs to be done, thus making comfort our goal in place of our stated goals.

Tonight I read more of the Ayahuasca Reader: Encounters with the Amazon's Sacred Vine.

Musing 1: That "Ayahuasca... is nourished on death and overcomes it" strikes me as further evidence for Jeremy Narby's argument in The Cosmic Serpent that this brew connects us in some way to our DNA and the larger perspective of that life force shared by all living things. It is that force that both overcomes death, through reproduction, and is nourished on it, as in survival of the fittest, the circle of life, etc.

Musing 2: In DMT - Water Spirit, D.M. Turner says "DMT is never smoked or burned in the cultures where a shamanic tradition exists." Is the uncommon Huaorani practice of burning Banisteriopsis leaves the exception that proves the rule? The reason given by the shaman is that the burning technique is a method for performing witchcraft, which the Huaorani do not support.

Musing 3: The Huaorani characterization of the ayahuasca vine as an "attractor plant" reminds me of The Secret and other Law of Attraction material. They say, "This is why whenever you touch this plant you must be aware of what you are thinking, because whatever you are thinking is what you will attract to your life when you touch this plant. This is why the Huaorani seldom use this plant." Heh. If you have played around with LoA principles, you have an experience of how difficult it can be to focus solely on the positive.