The book is arranged as a calendar. Three hundred and sixty-six entries, one a day. The sensible thing would have been to begin on the first of January. I began yesterday, on page 267, because that is where the book fell open and because I have spent enough years waiting for clean starting lines to know what usually becomes of them.
The entry for September 5th is Epictetus. His opening move in the Enchiridion is a sorting rule. There is a short list of things that belong to you: your judgments, your impulses, what you reach for and what you refuse. That is the whole list. Your body is not on it. Your reputation is not on it. Your results are not on it. Confuse the second category for the first, he says, and you will spend your life blaming gods and other people for weather you were never issuing.
It is worth remembering that he was a slave when he worked this out. The talk of shackles is not a figure of speech he reached for because it sounded good.
The page pairs him with James Stockdale, shot down over Vietnam, seven and a half years in prison camps. Interviewed decades later by Jim Collins, Stockdale said the men who died first were the optimists. They were the ones who decided they would be home by Christmas. Christmas came and went. Then Easter. Then Christmas again. They had staked everything they wanted on a date their captors owned.
Now, the part I actually want to write down, which is also the reason I am doing this at all.
I already knew this idea. I have known it for years. Some version of it is in every second book on decision-making, usually dressed up as controlling your inputs and not your outcomes, and I have repeated it to my own team more than once. Knowing it has changed almost nothing. I still rehearse conversations that are over. I still refresh an inbox for a reply that will arrive when it arrives. I still let the quality of a piece of work be decided, retroactively, by how it landed.
So the practice is not for learning. That is the shift I am trying to make. By March I will be reading arguments I have read before, and the repetition will not be a defect of the format. It will be the format. A daily page is not a curriculum. It is a rehearsal, the way scales are a rehearsal, the point being to have the thing available at the moment it is needed rather than admirable at the moment it is read.
Which suggests the practice needs a second half. Reading a page in the morning is easy and does nothing. So at the end of each day, one line in a notebook: what did I file in the wrong column today? Yesterday the answer was obvious and slightly humiliating. An email I sent last week making the case for next year’s budget, and have thought about roughly forty times since. The case was mine. The numbers, the framing, the decision to ask for what the work actually needs rather than for what I guessed would survive a first pass. All of that was mine and all of it is finished. The answer is not mine, has never been, and no amount of rereading my own sent folder has moved it a millimetre closer.
One caution I want to keep in view from day one. Told carelessly, this doctrine becomes a way of informing people that their suffering is their own fault, that if they were only more disciplined the harm would not reach them. Stockdale never claimed the torture was not real. He claimed it could not reach the one thing he was still choosing, which is a narrower and far stranger claim than cheerfulness, and much harder to earn.
Three hundred and sixty-five pages left. I am not doing this to arrive at serenity. I would settle for noticing faster.
Rohit Pruthi 
Leave a comment