I think experience of loss is needed for situational awareness of what is missing in one's responses. As a lover, a parent, and a worker in an industry, I have had to stop doing some things or abandon the role.

I recognize that I am a slow learner in many ways. Slowing down reactions has helped me a lot. Not saying what first comes to mind. Waiting creates a strange space where you and others don't know what will happen next. It is not a skill that is mastered but grudgingly accepted. I have met a good number who are better at it than me. Some of that is probably from being of a different disposition. Some of that is the application of a strategy.

I don't think we ever get to sort that out.

By the way, it is strange that there is no "axiology" section on the forum, because this section of philosophy is probably looking for answers to such questions. I know some practices that can be grouped into three approaches.


1. Practice of attention — training to see, что уже есть (Buddhism, phenomenology, awareness, Gurdjieff).

2. Practice gratitude — active recognition of values ​​(Christianity, psychology, partly stoicism).

3. The practice of thinking about death and the transition — to strengthen the presence without plunging into fear (Sufism, Stoicism, partly Heidegger).

I think this field of knowledge goes beyond theoretical philosophy and is a more practical field. Maybe someone knows other approaches?

It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss? — Astorre

Love of life. Ja sagen! (F.N.) Listening to music. Dancing. Wu wei. Platonic love. Lasting friendship. Gardening ...

awareness — Astorre

The actual 'you' is the Awareness that observes the happenings in the play that is going on; you are not your thoughts.

Alan Watts explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiZ2WAy0pxY&t=434s

There are the "Four Thoughts" one reflects on before Lojong practice in Tibetan Buddhism.

There is first reflection on the preciousness and extreme rarity of human birth. This motivates us not to waste our time to practice Dharma.

Next is dwelling on the idea that everything is transient; death is certain, the time of death uncertain. We might die today, and we shall surely die sometime not so long from now.

And this leads to dwelling on karma and the defects of samsara, which in turn leads us to take refuge in the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and Bodhicitta, as well as recognizing the grounding of all transience in emptiness.

But this is very similar in ways to Christian practice, although it diverges in the metaphysical contemplation.

Catholics use ACTS to guide prayer:

Adoration (of the Holy Trinity, the Theotokos, angelic hosts, saints, but of course only worship of the Father, Son, and Holt Spirit).

Contrition: the acknowledgement of sins and all the ways we fall short and "miss the mark" of Christlike life and love.

Thanksgiving: the one you're mentioning, which is now contextualized.

Supplication: directed at the good of ourselves and others

Dwelling on death and the impermanence of all things is likewise very common as a recommended practice for meditation ("meditation" in tradition Christianity being much like the common modern usage of "contemplation," focusing on pondering a particular subject, while Christian "contemplation" is much more like Buddhist "meditation;' I have no idea how these terms flipped).

Since you come from a background, I'm sure your familiar with the motif of portraits of Orthodox monks in their monastery's ossuaries where they are sitting contemplating the skulls of their deceased brothers (or sisters I suppose) by the light of the alter. Some Catholic saints are also often depicted with a skull for similar reasons. I have heard of Eastern monks even sleeping in their own eventual caskets as a meditation on death.

This all helps to focus on what "really matters," and what one ought to be thankful for. I think the repeated practice and conscious effort is probably more important than the exact form. Adoration leads to thanksgiving, since by contrast it shows how little lesser goods matter, while illuminating the infinite plentitude man is called to participate in through theosis. There is even a focus on attaining a view of non-duality in some Christian praxis, as you see in Meister Eckhart and even Dante's Divine Comedy, although this is a bigger focus in Hinduism.

I recall some similar motifs in Hindu practice as well.

There have been varying attempts to "secularize" these. I think the temptation with secularization is to drift into therapeuticization, the reduction of practice to an instrumental lever for self-assessed "well-being." For example, if dwelling on death bums you out, or actually makes you less likely to "strive to achieve your goals" or less motivated for the "daily grind" (which it well might, that tends to be one of the explicit goals of this practice) then arguably it is running counter to the therapeutic goal (although maybe only in the short term). The issue of prioritizing ends looms large here. Dwelling on death might be therapeutic, but it depends on the ends. Is being thankful a proper end or only useful instrumentally?

Also, in an exclusive humanist frame, death is simply the end, and worldly goods the measure of all goods. I find it hard to see how virtue doesn't end up instrumentalized here, unless perhaps a premium is put on freedom, and freedom is conceived of as requiring the virtues (but even then, we might ask, why is freedom good?). A greater appreciation of current goods seems easy to justify here, but a justification and embrace of suffering seems more difficult (not that it can't exist, e.g., Nietzsche's amor fati).

In modern framings, philosophy and psychology are normally quarantined from "spirituality." Hence, the challenge for a strictly "philosophical" sort of exercise in the modern sense will be that of exclusive humanism. Exclusive humanism doesn't necessarily rule out these moves, but they have to "cash out" in the sorts of goods it recognizes, and if a taste for the "spiritual" is a function of private preferences, then they will be something more like a hobby unless they can be justified ethically or instrumentally, whereas in the contexts mentioned they already have a firm justification.

Are there any methods, practices, or approaches that truly help a person appreciate what they already have — Astorre

I wish - sign me up.

I like @180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow.

It’s why arts education from children on up is so important - that is the gravy or icing on top that forces gratitude.

But doing good for others is the best way to experience gratitude, I think. When you show real charity, you are always humbled by how much you receive from it. You can never do enough charity, and that makes you realize how blessed you are. You might think you get guilty since you can never do enough, but if you are really open to things, you are grateful saving the whole world isn’t your responsibility.

So I think gratitude follows mostly from doing, not from learning.

And gratitude can be a basis for a relationship with God and the transcendent and the eternal - when there is no one left to thank and you still feel such great gratitude, God can show up.

I like 180 Proof answer - dancing. Just force yourself to act joyous, listening to a favorite jam, and gratitude and laughter follow. — Fire Ologist

:up:

. Maybe someone knows other approaches? — Astorre

There’s repentance. I don’t mean this in a religious sense, but as re-construal. The best way to appreciate anything in our life is to refresh its meaning for us. Simple attention won’t do this. Stare at anything long enough and it disappears. We must always re-construe in order to retain relevance. The world is amenable to an indefinite variety of ways we can make sense of it. When one is feeling bored, stuck in a rut, despondent or riddled with guilt for not appreciating others, the best route to gratitude is to take up audacity , re-invention and experimentation. Treat the self as a work of art in continual state of re-creation. Appreciate what you have through re-enchantment, and re-enchant through transformation.

It seems that you have turned away from your question about loss that I responded to.

That is not a complaint but an opportunity to ask you how the two subjects introduced are connected.

It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss? — Astorre

There are situations where loss does not have to be experienced to appreciate the value of life itself. Blissful ignorance is one. There were isolated people who lived their lives contently without experiencing significant losses. Or the "losses" they experienced is part of living a life -- old age, passing away, illness.

I think losses don't always teach us to appreciate life more. Humility is much more the way to feel gratitude. We look at the awesome world and realize we're just a small part of it, and we're okay with it.

Even successful rat race, which is not a loss, rather a very busy life in pursuit of material wealth can be an instrument to retreat back to simplicity and appreciate the simple things in life.

The idea wasn't to avoid answering the question, but rather to expand the discussion. The topic arose from my observation that people often both undervalue and overvalue what they already have. In the first case, regret follows the loss, while in the second case, relief (but again, regret over lost time) sets in. I played the role of a "German idealist" of yesteryear, asking whether it was possible to accurately assess what was already "given" to avoid these pitfalls. I cited approaches I knew. In a sense, these approaches help value what is given, but they lack the precision that would likely be of interest to utilitarians. Another question: is it even possible to accurately assess what is given?

For example, in business, there are several assessment techniques: financial valuation of assets (e.g., market value, liquidation value); human resource valuation (assessment of competencies and potential, and replacement cost); Intangible asset valuation (financial performance, brand strength); intellectual property valuation; SWOT analysis of resources (identifying strengths and weaknesses, understanding their applicability in the current environment); VRIO analysis (Value, Rarity, and Imitability (difficult to copy)); efficiency analysis. All these techniques, while somewhat costly, pay off handsomely in the long run.

And the most important question that arises in this regard: Do people need to make this most accurate assessment of what they already have in their daily lives, or is it easier to simply live life as it comes?

Reading your comments, I, as usual, begin to criticize myself for a certain superficiality, since you always very aptly develop your position on the topic of religion, in which you are clearly a great expert.

Since you come from a background, I'm sure your familiar with the motif of portraits of Orthodox monks in their monastery's ossuaries where they are sitting contemplating the skulls of their deceased brothers (or sisters I suppose) by the light of the alter. Some Catholic saints are also often depicted with a skull for similar reasons. I have heard of Eastern monks even sleeping in their own eventual caskets as a meditation on death. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Frankly, before I joined this forum, before I delved into the topic of dualism (body and soul) in Christianity and wrote a short essay on it (you may remember), I was somewhat skeptical of this skull worship. This practice seemed strange to me, since I assumed the soul had already left the body long ago, somewhere else—what was the point of cultivating these bones? However, after realizing that Christianity was previously more about monism and the resurrection of the whole person, these practices began to make sense to me. And as we've discovered, Orthodoxy has preserved this monism and veneration of the body (although few priests today understand this).

Thanksgiving: the one you're mentioning, which is now contextualized. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree. Christian "Thanksgiving" cannot be taken out of context and viewed as a standalone tool. It may have some effect, but the content itself will certainly be missing. Taking "Thanksgiving" out of Christianity and calling it the key is very reminiscent of a "success coach" and his attempts to offer five simple steps to achieving harmony and prosperity.

Do you think any attempt at simplification is impossible and will be empty, or is some systematization possible to convey the idea without delving into it?

There’s repentance. I don’t mean this in a religious sense, but as re-construal. The best way to appreciate anything in our life is to refresh its meaning for us. Simple attention won’t do this. Stare at anything long enough and it disappears. We must always re-construe in order to retain relevance. — Joshs

I had one positive experience in my personal life that allowed me to truly appreciate this approach. While married, I fell in love with another woman. I was faced with the choice of leaving my family and choosing this woman, or weaning myself off of my feelings for her (it's a shame dialectic isn't possible here). Essentially, at that time, I completely analyzed and rethought all my values—family, children, etc. As a result, I strengthened my initial position, realized how truly valuable they were, and chose family. Fortunately, women gave me the opportunity to make an informed choice, and my wife accepted me (by the way, I didn't have any physical affairs).

I remember that period in my life, which lasted about a year, well. My values ​​were tested in practice. I became convinced of them. But again, all this became possible only on the brink of loss.

Thus, this method is connected with assessing oneself not as the center of existence, but rather with experiencing gratitude simply for the fact that we exist and that something in the world operates not by our will, but according to its own laws—and yet harmoniously; seeing meaning and beauty in simplicity, in the natural flow of time, in limitations, and not only in exceptional experiences.

If I may express it briefly: The Method of Humbly Presence is a conscious way to appreciate life without loss, accepting oneself not as the center of the world, but as its natural part. Through the rejection of egocentrism, gratitude, sobriety of perception, and the ability to rejoice in the simple are born.



This review can be summarized as follows:

The method of active gratitude is a path to gratitude through action: dance, creativity, good deeds. Not reflection, but living experience—especially compassion—leads to humility and an awareness of how much has been given. Gratitude born in action can become a bridge to the transcendental, even when there seems to be no recipient.

I did not mean to make my question a rebuttal to your statement. Your reply is interesting. I won't try to respond to the whole of it now but will address a portion of it.

I have worked in construction for decades as a foreman or a project manager. The attempt to reduce the different factors to a set of calculations has long been at odds with how successful collaboration happens in real time. Everything I have worked on so far has been a messy collision of those incompatible approaches. I used to think of it as a kind of cultural war. It is that but other things as well. Those other things are not easily placed in frank juxtaposition.

In our area, builders like to repeat: "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines." This phrase perfectly expresses the essence of any idealistic approach to understanding human activity. Attempts to accurately structure, describe, or predict people's behavior tend to face a reality that is invariably richer, more complex, and more controversial than any scheme.

Reality has many levels, contexts and accidents that defy complete theoretical coverage. In this sense, any model that claims to be universal inevitably tests the limits of its applicability, especially in the field of humanitarian knowledge. This is often seen as a critique of the excess belief in causal rigor and scientific accuracy characteristic of positivist thinking.

Nevertheless, a person has always been characterized by the desire to transform observations into knowledge, and knowledge into a system capable of prediction. So what we call science was born. And although humanitarian disciplines are often criticized for the lack of strict formalization, they certainly have a certain predictive power. Let not in the form of rigid algorithms, but in the form of landmarks that allow you to think within the framework of probabilities, trends and meanings.

The search for consistency, even if it is conditional and incomplete, remains intellectually fruitful. It allows not so much to predict the future with accuracy as to set the direction of thought and action in a complex and multidimensional reality.

I would like to repeat my question:

And the most important question that arises in this regard: Do people need to make this most accurate assessment of what they already have in their daily lives, or is it easier to simply live life as it comes? — Astorre

The role and value of analysis is at a shifting border with other means of other learning methods.

My set of skills are a motley bunch. Most have come from learning from mistakes (thus my original comment about losses), many have come from repeating some things that I never got quite right and never will, some are methods that are rule bound and should just be accepted. I learned all of that mostly in service to others. I have met artists who work a different way. A pretty big fork in the road. I only have my fork.

It won't answer your question but I will observe the following:

I employ a method of work at home that would get me fired at a real job. Oh, wait, I have been fired for that. Analysis is not a thing by itself but happens in the context of working with other people. It is how I learned to be analytical by myself. Ultimately, that becomes another method of work. With the right eyes, you can see who is doing that or not in real time on a job site.

Back to other people. If it is three, the division suddenly introduces what being alone does not require. If is a hundred, you have entered a different space. But you are still there, trying to connect the missing dots.

I see my little boat floating in the Gaant chart.