To fail to plan is planning to fail. Covey has taken this phrase to beware the other on the need to take heed of what is revealed about us not from a constraint of the immediacy where what matters or seems to matter is the obvious where one is made to be based on an imposed fragile and futile lifestyle which hinges on the seen…. the obvious not necessarily the what is but no more of a truncated form.
In the latter format, all that is viewed is subjected to a form which is absurd since it is a haphazard way of being, nay that which lacks a comprehension with intelligence. It is based on the format of a mind which merely is responsive or reactive to the modes as revealed. In this mode, one is simply impulsive. Or how one acts and or commune with life is based on a mode of being which is simply as per the whim of the mental; that which may at one time leads one to take a path as dictated on the spur of the moment. Whilst some may revel at this at being so called living in the present, there is to be sure not taking of the future and or checking the self against the learning process of the past.
The wise needs to take note of what that past may have taught whilst taking shelter of a non-reactive or more precisely a creative way which accounts for what is to follow rather than being rapturous in the singular present which denies the self that one is.
It is about being astute and being responsible and or not falling prey to the purely reactive modes which corners us. Elsewhere we have noted that to pursue such a way is akin as again Covey observed to be on a flight where the pilot has no direction of where it is going or an agenda of a goal of where or how to land.
Disaster strikes when there is a no directive of where one may go. A compass becomes imperative in that one is proactive/creative. In reactive mode one simply is at the service of the mental forms as it reacts to the whims which is generated as and when. To be impetuous is to be engaged in those actions which are done without thinking and or taking notes of what one’s actions may have on oneself let alone others. To be sure all that is based on a comprehension that one is never independent at least not fully in a world where one is bound up either in some way or other with others.
Or one is always a responsible regardless of what station of life one is in. There may not be such a thing as being independent. It is a myth of the mind to feel that one is independent and so may act likewise as if one’s actions may not have consequences for others. Where one is impulsive, the other is relegated to a non-entity. One is prized above all others and so the whimsical aspect takes precedence with an attitude of ‘damn the rest’ at work. Or so one sees the ego self as that which is of prime value. To be more precise, it is an exclusive way to be which takes little or no heed of the other, any other for that matter.
The way of impulsiveness is verily that which seeks to impose itself there and then without care or respect for those about. It is plainly acting on the whims of the mind or mental which adopts that obscure way which reacts sometimes one way and at other time another way. It is reactive and in that mode; one is simply being a pawn to a mind which thinks is knowing but in truth disregards all others about its being.
Intelligence is not at work: There may not be respect to oneself or any other. Or one may observe that there is an apparent fragment at work; which is reactive. The way without a compass is like the pilot who is guiding others along the sky not quite knowing what to do or where to go and or not knowing how to halt if caught up in a whirlwind or persistent turbulence.
The indignant self is no more than such a guy who is at a lost in the wilderness and merely takes actions just to survive a disaster at all times. It is all about the instant, the spontaneous which may be prized in some quarters but clearly no more than a reckless way to be which verily causes disturbance form the norm. To be sure there may not be any comfort in leading a plain ignoble way where one takes shelter of an always confused mind. Or it is a question of turning that mind to befriending it and makes it work for the self that one truly is and look at how one may re-tune in being a comrade.
The question always remains how does one awakens intelligence? The question of how to be is linked verily on a way which is open ended and never a closed affair. The whimsical takes shelter of itself, the ego self which absolves all others but adopts the self; whilst the accommodating self makes use of a vison to be; that which takes its being from the dialectics with a non -disrespect to the other but importantly taking shelter of intelligence where the mind is friend. Can one be that and or develop such a way to be? Or should one perpetually be at the mercy of the reckless and be forced to adopt its ways? How may one be free of rashness? The other question is how may one be like that life pilot with a compass, a goal or a guide? ….. rather than its antithesis where all one does is be at the whims of one’s mind or like the pilot without a clear goal.
BEWARE: It is very much a question of choice!