A PANT LEG OF ACTION

Every instant is defined by a state of action or inaction which is what it is. You are doing or not doing x.

Every current action in process has a position in an action flow path that is potentially continuous, and is segmentable.

Every choice of action involves a primary binary decision in the instant to stay with or switch away from the current flow of action.

All actions are points on paths of action flows, coursing from a fork in a prior flow path, and infinite paths before that.

Thus action can be viewed as incremental. Increments can be viewed as segmented units of action, which although not fungible, can be handled, moved, alternated, rotated, and inventoried.

In other words, one continuous action can take place at dis-jointed points in time, alternated with segments or increments from other continuous actions. Instead of Action Flow 1, A,B,C; or Action Flow 2, a,b,c, it is possible to alternate actions Aa,Bb,Cc, or any other combination and still achieve flow and closure, without loss of tempo.

Action can be metered. Action can have tempo. Action can have rhythm.

What shall we call a basic measure of action in terms of an increment or segment. Is it a "minute" of action? A "yard" of action? A "foot" of action?

I choose to call it a "pant leg of action". There is an old saying that you can only put on "one pant leg at a time". The basic unit of action measurement is something you can only do one of at one time, without alternation with other units of action. In other words, a "pant leg of action" is a minimum increment of action that is so basic, it doesn't get mixed up with other units of action in the action blender of "time".

Units of time measure action only indirectly. However, time is useful for measuring action. Hence best-selling books like Blanchard's The One Minute Manager, about chunking projects into 1 minute actionable units. Reference also, The Fly Lady, household management expert extraordinaire who says "You can do Anything in 15 Minutes". Reference also,Alan Lakein,who invented the Swiss Cheese Method for breaking large projects into small bites and working them incrementally.

Once you see Action as a Pant-Leg, in other words a timeable, measurable unit of discrete process flow, you can then see the benefits of incremental action, incremental improvement (kaizen), and the principles of incremental or segmental action flow involving multi-tasking that I have identified as alternation and rotation.

Additionally, you can begin to appreciate the Japanese concept of bushido (which in action management I call getting caught up in the timeless artfulness of a single action to the point where there is no management, just continuous purposeful flow, ala zen.)

So, how do I measure a pant leg of action in terms of time? Generally 3 minutes, or 5 minutes, or combined into 8. But, that's arbitrary. 1 minute isn't enough for anything. 15 minutes is a serious commitment. But, consider this. At 5 minutes 20 times a day on a priority, you have applied 100 minutes, out of about 480 useful minutes available. These can be incremented, alternated, and rotated with other non-priority or lower priority Pant Legs of Action while keeping the primary focus on the A1 priority, just putting the flow together in a sequence composed of intervals.

You would be surprised how continuous cyclical return to a primary task, alternated with relief work on lesser priorities, actually compresses the amount of time to get the primary priority done, and assists you in clearing out the clutter of the peripheral junk that causes you so much stress.

And, because the amount of time you have in a day is like a bucket with a limited available quantity, it is important to make good choices about which Pant Legs you are applying your time to, and which not, and in which order. Since you can't do everything, the less lower priority stuff done, and the more higher priority stuff done with higher time compression, the less likely you are to find yourself at the end of the day pouring water into an already full bucket.

Well, having mixed pant legs and buckets, time for my usual reminder. The MasterList remains the best tool I have found for co-ordinating this kind of conducting of action. The MasterList makes you the conductor and co-ordinator, or even "composer" (yet another mixed metaphor) of the ongoing action flow of your life; rather, than you being the victim of the flow. You decide the tempo, the timing, and the exact choice of increment to "bench" on your action worktable at any given moment to the exclusion of all others. Thus, rather than your being swept away by the process,The MasterList is your tool to control the process. Sometimes you can't become a virtuoso, without the right tool. When it comes to life management, work management, and personal process management, The MasterList is that tool.

To recap, a Pant Leg of Action is a unit of action that involves an uninterrupted focus on an action, for an incremental span of time, working from an instant. This instant.

That's why I am not and should not be intimidated by anybody, since they cannot do any more than me in the instant. And, on a going forward basis, we have an equally infinite inventory of potential instants that lay ahead where we can make competitive action choices. The future is always a level playing field, particularly when I have a tool like The MasterList, where I can "load the deck" with pre-configured potential action choices, which allow me to resist succumbing to mere reactivity to the gush of events.

I can achieve anything, starting from where I am already at, assuming I understand that when it comes to a Pant Leg of Action, I have the freedom to choose which one right now; and, defer the rest, until just the right time.

BLIND AMBITS

An ambit is the arced far-edge of a potential range of vision or action.

Every ambit has relativity to an actor, or agent, who is the originator of the view to the potential action. This actor is at a center, or centering point, called origo.

Between the ambit and the actor is a line, kind of like a balloon string, that is path of potential action along the view.

One actor can have many ambits. The universe being multi-dimensional, not linear, and at least global, the strings of potential actions for any individual extend in 360 degrees in any plane cutting through a sphere.

We can recognize that there are 360 potential planes of action to the 360th for any individual in any instant.

The instant is where we find ourselves right now.

Habit is the ambit we are most likely to pursue right now without further analysis.

Routine is the method by which we will act upon an habitual ambit.

Compulsion is an internal or external force (like trying to keep a job, or keep a marriage together) that influences a proclivity towards habitual action.

The universe of potential actions is broader than any one ambit. So, the potential universe has many aspects which can be viewed as ambits, or acted upon in the alternative to any path of action currently being acted upon in the instant. Likewise, any ambit has many potential aspects and is not always the same when viewed in different instants.

Because this is not understood, we are often surpised by what is new, innovative, and paradigm-shifting. But, if we understand this, we can see the Black Swan coming.

A Black Swan is something unexpected that suddenly materializes in a new and provocative way.

What to choose? How to choose? Where to go?

If you close your eyes, meditation style, the physical world and competing attractors are shut down. This takes you to an inner range of vision. Candidates for action can be recognized by other than physical means. Take a pile of work on your desk for example. That's a physical attraction. But, is it a priority? Shut down the physical by closing your eyes and assess the possibilities from the point of view of temporary physical blindness.

I call this being oracular. Weren't most oracles blind, or in dark hidden recesses like wells where the questors had to lean in and their questions echoed around? Ask yourself, for instance what do I do next? The answer may be different with eyes closed, than with eyes opened. I call this inner dialogue. Listen to the answer, with eyes-closed. This may lead you to eyes open action. I call this working to the outside from the inside.

The Mind is in the head. Eyes-closed it can ask: What are ALL the ambits (ie potential actions), the candidates, for this instant? It is easier to decide sometimes without the distraction of the physical and visual, which is limiting. This is what I mean by this process being oracular; and comprehensive because it mutes the habitual.

If you start from the physical, visual perspective, you may find yourself peripheralizing and working your way in. If you start from within, you may find the clearpath directly to the outer target you had hoped to see and act upon in the first place.

This is a technique for looking at possibilities, silently and objectively, without emotion and then choosing. It's mental, not visceral. Then, all the components necessary to accomplish the chosen action can be carried out in the same vein.