原文: Know Who You Are --> Know What You're Meant to Do --> Know Where You Belong

My friend Paul Heft, in response to my article about the difference between what you're meant to do and what you're meant to be, wrote: As soon as you use comparisons or quantification ("uniquely good at") you are talking about doing, not being. "What is X good at doing" is a fine utilitarian question for an Intentional Community (IC) to ask of its members, and especially candidates for membership, in order to decide how to best use their talents and capacities. One may be good at farming, or parenting, or leading, or planning, etc.      The English language is wonderfully loose, but let's not confuse that with "being", as in being genuine, being compassionate, being a friend, being aware--which are each aspects/modes of being yourself. Being yourself is not an activity, or a set of capacities for action (talents, skills, knowledge, etc.) Being yourself ("authentically nobody-but-myself") is, perhaps, resting in your true nature (once you have managed to see through the conditioning that generates personality along with its biases, defenses, beliefs and rationalizations).      In that position I suspect you might feel at home wherever you are, and from that position you will do what you know is appropriate. Where can you call "home"? What you do uniquely well, and love doing, which enables others to change for the better, might not belong in any land-based intentional community. (It seems that the ICs we discuss are land-based, such as farms and ecovillages--with the exception of the IC being created in Second Life.) Instead I see you serving a large number of communities and organizations, and in return receiving material support from them. This is analogous to an itinerant preacher or circuit judge, except you may be able to do a large portion of your travelling through cyberspace rather than across the land. I suspect that, even as you help others identify and live well with the land, you will identify with something much larger (Gaia?). Your home may be merely a home base, from which you will travel in service, and to which you will return to take pleasure in dear friends and familiar surroundings. In that case you will not be tied to a particular habitat like a farmer, or a hunter, or a bear, or a salmon.      I still think we ideally need to know who we are meant to be, before we can really expect to know what we are meant to do. Paul uses the examples of being compassionate and being aware. These are, I think, capacities of being. Some of us are just better at being these things than others are. We can of course work hard to 'be' better at these things. I would love to say that my distinctive capacity, what I am uniquely good at being, is perceptive, aware, but I know that is not true. Some of my distinctive Capacities are intuitiveness, what is called 'lateral thinking', and pattern-recognizing ability. While they can be applied in what I 'do', these capacities are, of themselves, elements of my being, part of who I am. I would do them even if I had no 'use' for them. If I were to let-myself-change to become more aware, more perceptive, more sensual, that would become part of who I am -- and I aspire to be that. But it is not (yet) who I am, and if I try to live as if it is, I am not going to be happy; I will be constantly feeling as if I'm letting people (and myself) down. I don't think I'm playing fast and loose with language here, though I may be communicating badly.   The second part of who we are, I think, is what we love being, what I called in the earlier article Joys. If I were to be honest, I would admit that I love being popular. That means I love appreciation, and that I will be driven to do things (like blogging in public) that (hopefully) draw that appreciation to me. But that is part of who I am, not of what I do. I love to be stimulated (intellectually, emotionally, physically). I love to be at peace, feeling connected with all-life-on-Earth, and that drives me to do all kinds of things (like avoiding bad news, and being anxious in the very crowds whose appreciation I crave.) It is possible, though difficult, to learn to love being things we do not currently love being, though I think it is difficult.   The third part of who we are, I believe, is what we need ourselves to be, and what others need us to be. In my earlier article I called this Intention, but perhaps a better word would be Requirement. This includes things we already are (if they are needed, valued) and other things that we will have to become if we aspire to fulfill our own and others' needs. My intuitiveness is something I need -- I rely on it and trust it immensely -- but I wouldn't say it's needed or valued by others. Awareness is something that I need to be, for self-fulfillment (I know because I long to 'be' in the moment, to really see, to exist in 'Now Time', to be connected to all-life-on-Earth). What others need from me (I think) is sensitivity and patience, qualities of being that I am not good at and don't especially aspire to be (perhaps I am afraid that if I were sensitive I'd be hurt and stressed too easily, and if I were patient I'd 'settle' too easily). These things just aren't me.   The chart above (an analogy to my Gift/Passion/Purpose three-circle chart for deciding what you're meant to do for a living), shows the Sweet Spot in the middle that, I think, corresponds to true happiness. I've filled in the qualities that I think represent me. What would you put in each of the circles: What are you good at being, what would you love to be; and what do you need yourself to be (and what do others need you to be)? Everything in any of the circles is, I think, to some extent, a part of who we are or intend to be. The more qualities that are in that central Sweet Spot the happier we are. To become happier, we strive to find people who need and value our Area 2 (unappreciated) qualities, and we strive to come to appreciate these qualities more in ourselves. To become happier, we strive to acquire competency in Area 4 qualities. To become happier, we strive to appreciate and enjoy our Area 5 qualities. Success in any of these efforts moves these qualities to the Sweet Spot in the centre. What we're good at being often determines what we're good at doing. What we love (or would love) being can correlate to what we love doing. And what people need us to be can determine what they need us to do. So the Capacities/Joys/Requirements list (what we're meant to be) should offer us clues about what our Gifts/Passions/Purpose might be (what we're meant to do). The things that I am that make me happiest (being articulate and provocative and imaginative), for example, map pretty closely to the things that are in my Gifts/Passions/Purpose Sweet Spot (expository writing, facilitating self-change in others, imagining possibilities) -- what I think I'm meant to do for a living. But these are all fairly introspective, intellectual qualities and activities -- perhaps not those of someone aspiring to start an Intentional Community, and lead the charge for better ways to live and make a living? In learning more about who we authentically are (nobody-but-ourselves), and about who we are not (the qualities 'adventurous', 'courageous', 'perseverant' and 'persuasive' are conspicuously absent, for example, from my chart) will a better understanding of who we are meant to be, and what we are meant to do, emerge? And once we have this better understanding, will we be able to better figure out where we belong, where is home, to us? Paul suggests that perhaps 'home' for me (and for others in our increasingly tiny, global, unreal world) might be just a stopping-off place, not a place where I make a living at all. Even if flying all over the world is ecologically irresponsible (and will soon be unaffordable), perhaps my place for making a living is in a virtual world? If that's the case, perhaps I'm freed from working on the land to embrace the whole Earth as my 'home'. It's an interesting idea. But my intuition says that's all it is, that, as physical, visceral creatures, our home is some tangible Earthbound place. Paul may be right that technology will one day separate the place where we make a living from the place we call home. Perhaps it will even separate the place where those that we love live, physically, from the place we, individually, call home. Somehow, though, I doubt it. The essential enterprises of all species are all about providing the necessities of life -- love, food, learning, play -- and these can all be provided, as long as we are not reckless in our numbers and consumption, easily, and are best provided close to home. Now all we need to do is figure out where that is. Category: Being Human

译文: 了解自己-->l了解你立志从事的——>了解你所属的地方

      我的朋友保罗赫福特，应我有关立志从事与要成为什么样的人两者之间的差异的文章的需要，这样写道：

      你一旦使用对比和量比（擅长做的）你谈论的就是做而不是成为。×擅长做什么是一个非常实用的问题。为了决定怎样才能最好的体现他们的才干和能力，国际社团就这样询问其成员，特别是对于成员候选人。一些人或许擅长耕种，或是培育孩子，抑或是领导，制定计划等等。

      英语虽不是非常严谨，但是却没有混淆“being”的意思。例如，真诚的，富有同情心的，作为一个朋友，警惕的——这都是做自己的每个方面和模式。做自己不是一种活动，或是一整套行动能力（才干，技能，知识等等）做自己（“真正的自己），就是，也许是将你真正的本性释放出来。（一旦你已经设法看透除形成个性之外，还有偏见，防御，信仰和理性的情况。）

      在那种情况下，我猜想你会觉得自己身处的地方就像在家里一样，在那种情况下，你会做你认为恰当的事。对你而言，哪里可以称之为“家“呢？你所做的独有的好，并喜爱做，这使得其他人更换更好的，也许不属于任何一个陆上的国际社团。（似乎我们所讨论的国际社团是处在陆上的，例如农场和生态村——除了由再生创造的国际社团）相反的，我看见你供职于大量的社团和组织，然后从他们那里获得物质资助。这与牧师或法官类似，除了你也许大部分时间都在网络空间上逛而不是在陆地上。我猜想，正当你帮助其他人在陆地上居住和生活得好的时候，你会与更众多的居住在一起（盖亚）。你的家也许仅仅是家的居所，是为你旅行提供服务的地方，是归来之时与朋友共享欢乐的地方，那里有着熟悉的环境。在那种情况下，你不会受习惯的约束，不会像个农民，猎人，或是熊，大马哈鱼。

      我仍然觉得我们在我们真正能够预想自己想要做之前，在理论上必须了解我们想要成为什么样的人。保尔用了富有同情心和警惕的例子。我认为这些例子都是成为的能力，我们有的人只是比其他人擅长某些事物而已。当然，我们可以努力工作使得我们在这些事物上能够“做”得更好。

      我想要说的是我独特的能力，我唯一擅长的是具有敏锐，警惕的特质，但是我知道那并不真实。我的某些特有的能力是那个被称为“横向思维”以及模式识别能力的直觉。当它们应用到“做”当中是，这些能力就是我“成为”的要素，是属于我的一部分。即使我对它们没有任何“用处”，我也会做。如果我让自己变得更加警惕，更加敏锐，更加倾于感官，那将会成为我的一部分——我渴望如此。但是那不是我，如果我试着那样生活，我将不会快乐。我会一直觉得我是不是让人们（以及我自己）大失所望。虽然我表述得可能不太好，但是我不认为我现在是在玩文字游戏。

      我认为我们是谁的第二部分是我们喜欢成为什么样的人。在之前的文章中，我称之为快乐。坦率的说，我喜欢收到别人的欢迎。这意味着我喜欢被赏识，这将会迫使我拼命的做事（在公众场合不停的说话）以（希望）获得赏识。但是那只是我的一部分，并不是我所做的部分。我喜欢被鼓励（智力上，情感上，身体上）。我喜欢平静，自己的感情与地球上的一切生命相连。这迫使我做各种各样的事情（比如避免不好的消息，在所有我渴望获得赏识的人面前小心翼翼），那是极有可能的，虽然困难，但是尝试去喜爱那些现在不喜欢的事情。尽管我认为很艰难。

      我觉得我们是谁的第三个部分是我们需要自己成为怎样的人，别人又需要我能成为怎样的人。在我之前的文章中，我把这个叫做意图。但是也许叫做“要求”更好。要求包括了我们已经拥有的（不管是否需要，有价值）以及其他的如果我们需要满足自己和他人的需求所要达到的。我的直觉是我所需要的——我依靠它并且非常相信它——但是并不意味着它必须被别人需要或珍视。我需要的是警觉。为了自我满足（我知道因为我在那时渴望“成为”，真正看来，是存在在“现时”，与地球上所有的生物相连着）。别人需要从我这里得到的（我想）是灵敏和耐心，以及我不擅长也不是特别想要那样的“成为”必要的品质。（也许我害怕如果我变得敏感，我会受到伤害，很容易有压力。如果我很有耐心，我会很容易“安定”。）这些都不是我。

      上面的图表（一个关于我的天赋，热情，决心三环图，以决定你将要怎样生活）展示的中心部位的交汇点，我认为是真正的快乐。我填入了我认为代表我的品质。你会在每个环里边放入什么：你所擅长的，你喜欢成为的，你所需要的（以及别人需要你成为的）。

      我认为在每个圈子的所有事物，在一定程度上是我们想要成为什么样的一部分。处在中心交汇点的品质越多，我们越快乐。为了更加的快乐，我们努力寻找需要和珍视我们第二区域特质（未被赏识）的人，我们努力赏识我们自身更多这样的品质。为了更加的快乐，我们努力获取第四区域的能力。为了更加的快乐，我们努力意识到和欣赏自己第五区域的特质。在这些方面的任何成功使得这些品质向着交汇点进发。

      我们懂得要成为什么样的往往决定了我们擅长做什么。我们钟爱（或是会钟爱）成为什么样的可以与我们喜欢做的相互练习起来。同时，人们对我们的需要决定了他们需要我们怎么做。所以能力/快乐/要求列表（我们要成为什么样的人）可以为我们提供有关的天赋/热情/意图的线索（我们将会做什么）。

      让我最快乐（善于表达，挑战，富有想象力）的事情是我自己，例如，地图非常接近与在天赋/热情/意图交汇点的事物（陈述作品，促进自我改变，想象可能性）——我认为我要做什么来维持生活。但是这些都是自省，智力水平和活动——也许不是那些想要建立国际社团，改变以寻求更好的生活方式生活的人？了解更多有关我们真正是谁（不是别人是我们自己）以及我们不是什么（从我的图表之中可以看出冒险，勇敢，坚持，以及有说服力的品质特别缺乏），会不会在我们想要成为怎样的人，我们想要做什么的问题上有更好的理解。

      一旦我们有了更好的理解，我们能不能更好的寻找到属于我们的地方，对我们而言，我们的家在哪？

      保尔建议说，也许“家”于我而言（以及对于其他生活在这个日益变小，全球化和虚幻的世界的人们而言）只是一个停留的地方，并不是生活的地方。虽然飞遍全球从生态意义上是不负责任（很快就会负担不起），也许我生活的地方应该是虚幻的世界。如果情况真是这样，或许我不用在陆地上工作了，然后去拥抱那个被称之为“家”的整个世界。

      这是一个非常有趣的主意，但是我的直觉告诉我，那就是所有。那是，对于身体，内脏生物，我们的家是一个有形的，实际的地方。保尔也许是正确的，有一天，技术将会分离我们所生活的叫做家的地方。也许它甚至会分离我们所热爱生活的地方，分离那个我们各自称为家的地方。

      不知道为什么，但是我很怀疑。所有五种的主动力是所有与提供生活的必需品相关的——爱，食物，学习，游玩——只要我们注意我们的数量和消耗，这些都是很容易就可以提供的。并且是与家相近的最好供应品。

      现在，我们所需要做的就是找出它们在哪儿。