Henrik Karlsson writes stuff that makes me start speculating wildly about "what if?"
Such was the case this morning when I read this essay of his. So I took to my typewriter, where I pondered the following, which has been transcribed here.
***
6.16.26
7:43am
What if??
You know what I mean? "What if" is both an expansive way to see the world and an incredibly limiting one. "What if?" It's the kind of question that asks you to think of things you cannot see and accept them as possible. In doing so, however, you blind yourself to "what is" and can end up overlooking the most important details of your present situation.
What if?
It's the place where imagination and limitation coexist.
What is?
Now, that -- that's the place where observation and acceptance meet. Ideally, that's where they converse, too. Because observations without acceptance become rumination, and rumination necessitates the assigning of intent. It's then that you wind up still wondering... "what if?"
Ironically, "what if?" thinking can be a useful way to color in the details of "what is?" thinking. But only if accompanied both by acceptance and release.
How do you think about the difference between a "what if?" type of thinking and a "what is?" approach?
onward.
For more on this daily column and The MAP Year Project, read the backstory here. And if you know someone who'd appreciate this, pass it along.