Suppose two couples, each of whom subsequent to five years of marriage give birth to a bouncing baby boy. Both couples began attempting to have a baby within their first year of marriage, did not succeed until the fifth. Let us refer to the two couples as Couple Pai and Couple Iam.
Couple Pai had their son via heterosexual copulation, did not make any forays into scientific opportunities for having of a baby. The decision not to avail themselves of scientific opportunities, such as in vitro fertilization was deliberate, well thought out, conscious.
Couple Iam had their son via in vitro fertilization. Up until the fourth year, however, they had stuck with attempts at conception via heterosexual copulation. They commenced in vitro fertilization in fifth year of marriage, succeeded with first attempt in same year. The decision up until the fourth year to adopt heterosexual sex, and the decision to switch strategies in the fifth year? Deliberate, well thought out, conscious.
In light of decisions taken by Couples Pai and Iam, and without any casting of aspersions on scientific opportunities for conception, is it possible to rank Couples Pai and Iam with respect to patience? Is it possible to say ‘Couple Pai was more patient than Couple Iam’, or vice versa?
Clearly, Couple Pai must be considered to be more patient than Couple Iam. Since Couple Iam succeeded immediately with in vitro fertilization, they did not have to exercise any patience on that dimension. While both couples persisted with attempts at having a child, only Couple Pai persisted at adoption of heterosexual sex for achievement of the objective. While both couples demonstrated patience, one couple was more patient with a strategy than the other.
Regardless of exercise of more patience — persistence with respect to attempts at conception via heterosexual copulation until the fifth year — however, Couple Pai conceived a child in exactly the same time frame as Couple Iam.
But suppose Couple Pai stopped having sex in the fourth year and did not switch to any other approach for having of a baby. Clearly it would not have been possible for the couple to have a baby boy in the fifth year. Well then, if just living and waiting till the fifth year is not sufficient for conception of a baby, it must be the case that it is persistence at heterosexual sex that in this context constitutes evidence for patience. The activity then, as opposed to passage of time is evidence for patience.
Suppose again for example, two people attempting to secure a job. Both send out resumes, obtain jobs after six months of searching. Turns out, however, that while one resume was filled with truths the entire six months, the other became a mix of truths and lies starting in the fourth month. Clearly, again we find that while a job materialized within the same time frame, only one of two job candidates can be characterized to be possessing of patience at truth telling.
The preceding short illustrations demonstrate how it is patience is not about passage of time, but about capacity for sticking to a particular course of action. We all have the same amount of time available to us. In absence of death, we all get to live one more day, week, month, or year. Clearly, any dichotomies along dimension of patience relate only to what we do with our time, not how much of time elapses on our watch.
Whenever people admonish patience, more often than not they refer to time, as opposed to activities.
Patience, however, is not about marking of the time off of a Calendar. Patience is about persistence at doing the right things, persistence at whatever it is possesses intrinsic capacity for bringing about the object of our desire. It of course would be helpful if our desires are noble and uplifting.
While pivoting of strategies implies lack of patience with a prior strategy, so long as effort continues to be deployed towards achievement of the objective, we remain patient with respect to achievement of an objective. Given pivoting of strategies can be the right thing to do, impatience with a strategy does not imply impatience with respect to achievement of the objective (Couple Iam). While the British for example gave up on the European Union for achievement of improvements in welfare of ordinary citizens, they remain committed to achievement of improvements in welfare outside of normal membership within the European Union. We find then that impatience with respect to a strategy can be deemed beneficial for achievement of an objective.
It is important, however, that impatience with a strategy does not devolve into adoption of unethical or immoral strategies. Whenever impatience devolves into unethical or immoral conduct, people in question cannot be deemed to be patient with respect to achievement of an objective. Unethical or immoral behavior never can be evidence for patience.
So then the next time someone recommends patience to you, perhaps you should inquire of them what activities especially they deem relevant for achievement of your aspirations.