While I can't claim to have found any answers yet, there's one question/ idea I'd like to throw into the discussion: That what you do about a situation/problem depends on what your desired end result is (and how far it's feasible, of course. )
One thing I've always have had a slight problem with is the idea that there's one defined state of enlightenment or things to strive toward that should be desirable for everyone or objectively better, different from not understanding the necessity for compromise and maturation.
Some things can be "worth it", the quest is finding out which ones.
Obviously there's a necessary balance - you need to have some minimum rounded functionality also known as "having your shit together" because if you can't do crucial steps of the "getting stuff done" process, whatever skill you have at others will be completely useless and won't help you one bit - but on the other hand, you don't want to endlessly strain yourself to archeive an arbitraty common idea of "normal" or "desirable", working hard for results that no matter how much you apply yourself will look pathetic next to what others do without trying - and I don't mean that from a point of "then why bother" (giving up is even more useless), but more in a sense of picking your battles.
I mean it seems clear to me at this point that this "five pattern" thing is something that exists and likely sits at the root of some of my problems, as shameful as it seems I've recognized that this... "draw back and inject more analysis into feasome thing" knee-jerk reaction is something that's there, and that's been a humbling experience, to see a connection between what I'd consider the higher parts of myself and bare instinct like raw fear.
Then again, evolution gave us humans our brains for the same reasons it gave eagles their talons so it makes sense that there things would be connected.
But at the same time, and well-aware of my capacity to be wrong/or in denial here, I'm not sure I can buy this story/ want to follow this path of seeing rationality or curiosity as some uneeded crutch I need to throw away.
If anything, using rationality as a crutch seems to profane rationality, if not stop it from truly qualifying as such. Obviously if fear is involved, you get attached to certain potential results, and you want conclusions fast instead of well-thought out, it's a lens that distorts your process and stops productivity so it all becomes useless...
I know there's no accolades for "potential" genius, if you can't do shit then you can't do shit and you don't actually know if you hypothetically could, I'm well aware that I haven't accomplished anything worth a damn yet, and a model of reality that doesn't feature in impactful things like the feelings of yourself and others is not a good model at all.
Reality is out there and just because we can't be 100% certain about it/ free of subjective factors, or that it inherently isn't made in such a convenient way that be can have that, doesn't mean that 99% certainty is the same as none.
While I can't rule out that it's true, I'd hate to think that pursuing knowledge and enlightenment is purely because of fear.
Maybe it's just tempting to (mis)use the knowledge or analytic faculties to soothe yourself if you already have them.
Then again I'd be the first person to anowledge that desirability is no requisite of the truth and first of all I want to know what the truth is, what's comfortable to me doesn't matter, and I'm very far from being unaffected by what's comfortable for me, but it's something to strive towads.
That is, I see the need to get things out of the way that make me "not productive", and realize that can entail changing my ways or, doing things I don't like, but do I have to want a pecific set of things/goals for that? Not a rethorical question here, I genuinely don't know the answer yet.
I think that your genuine pursuits and low kneejerk reactions use the same faculties while having filters that blurr the difference is the greatest difficulty of it all. Where's the line between fact, legitimate opinion/interpretation, models that are useful for your situation but not universal, and self-serving bias. All four are different things.