On being the solution

Correcting where (what/when) others have gone/done wrong seems the darnedest thing to the figure that relies more on the weaker instinct of the common critic, that is; them that play the blame game instead of sitting or standing back, establishing the possible sources to the problem at hand, then mulling over the various solutions possible to rendering that which at first seems a problem a threat contained.
Resorting to the commoner’s tactic of being loquacious instead of remembering that one has the mind and the hands to solve the problem means that the problem lives on while blabbermouths talk to the fringes of and further on into the hinterlands of mendacity.

Instead of discussing the solution to what is the problem, the blamers blame or try to find someone on which they can pin the blame, some scapegoat that is often too weak or powerless to defend themselves.
Far often, the blamed are not even there to defend their supposed errors, and if present, are not granted the opportunity to defend their position to the best of their knowledge and ability.

There is always the weak defence for the critique (the justification for the blame), a weak straw on which the blamers clutch and will vehemently defend as if it is solid despite its obviously weak rooting.
The reason for their holding on to this weak excuse is just so that they can go on with their mundane illogical line of reasoning in defence of the obviously baseless and useless.

I am a craftsman, and there are countless incidences where I am beckoned to correct some construction error done by some poor individual that claimed they knew something about tiling, about mounting ceilings, or, even mounting built-in cupboards.
Upon arrival on site, I choose to ignore the countenance of the poor craftsman who could not do what he claimed he could do like he claimed he could.
The first step is to assess the damage done in terms of reparability, that is, I establish whether the shoddy work can be repaired or modified to a level that is satisfactory enough to satisfy the client.

The second step is to calculate the full extent of the repair process in terms of cost in material (to be bought by the client), the expenses of labour or man hours my team and I will put into the whole process of salvaging the failed work, and then I attend to the most important aspect of the whole process, that is, if the client can afford to pay for the whole procedure in a once off payment, or whether they will pay in instalments.

Throughout this whole process there are two character qualities that are paramount on my part as the craftsman; intention and prestige.
The basic intention is always to repair the damage done to the best of my ability at a cost that is reasonable to both parties engaged, that is, the client and I.
Prestige comes as a result of the good reputation that one gathers from being a craftsman whose work is marvelled by all the clients one comes across in their line of work.
Prestige is not an accident, but it is a quality associated only with those that are methodical, precise, neat, and understanding in the execution of their duties.
I care not why the previous craftsman of questionable skill messed up the job, I care only that there is a task that demands utter care at hand.
If I ramble on about how badly the job was done, then it means that the job will never be done as it should, but instead; the discussion on the possible solutions to the problem at hand will turn into an extended gossip session that muddies the countenance of the previous-poorly skilled craftsman at the expense of the necessary corrections that need to be done not being made on time.
In short, when there is a problem, the wise character focuses on the possible solutions and does not question why they were made, but how they can be solved.

Only amateurs believe in talking when they should be finding ways of handling the problem appropriately enough until it turns into its own solution.
When there is a problem at hand, the correction of the error committed is the most vital aspect of the scenario.
Who committed it often does not count for much, for they may by the moment of the problem’s realisation be long gone, and therefore, wondering who they are extends the problem-solving phase and in essence leaves room for the problem to get worse.
I came across a fallen ceiling this weekend, and rather than wonder who mounted it, I focused on how I could salvage the remaining pieces in a condition good enough to render them suitable for remounting.

The dimwit who had mounted them previously had committed errors that revealed his incompetence as a craftsman, but I chose to keep the glaring incompetence to myself (I will say nada about it now).
I assured the client that the correction of the previous shoddy work was possible, got the go-ahead, and then commenced with the process of remounting the ceiling.

After the job was done, we parted ways with the clients, and they were happy with the job done. I got my pay and my contentment; the problem was solved: all parties concerned were happy.
Why we often choose to go and beat a dead dog instead of digging a grave to bury it in before it stinks up the whole place as it begins to rot vexes my understanding.

Problems are of varied sorts and the solutions thereof come in myriad forms, but there is only one form of that which requires a solution because it is impeding the normal running or functioning of an entity; it is termed a problem.
Its magnitude is relative, for it may seem minute for some and gargantuan for others; its full extent and expanse cannot oftentimes be determined because of its immeasurability.

For the affected, the problem may be more clear than for those not in the direct path of the problem’s trajectory, and the only way the two sides can understand the problem is if they establish a point real or virtual at which they can understand what is irking one side and not bothering the other.
Human society has progressed thus far because of this one quality, the instinctive tendency to empathise with the conditions of others based on their mutual respect as fellow human beings by the party that may hold a differing opinion or point of view.

It is at this point of understanding of the difference that the entity we term as the solution stems, a point where one side that may disagree with certain aspects of a problematic entity establish a common ground with the complainants; a common point of understanding whose advent means that both parties gain mutual benefits embraced in the solution they establish in their joint pursuit of the common ground.
There is nothing as discouraging as declaring a session of negotiations as ‘failed’, for it means that the two parties involved in the process of argumentation gained nothing out of the often extended discussions in search of the solution.

Failed means that the two or more sides could get nothing common out of the whole discussion, that they did not find similarities even in their physiological make-up, this is to say, a discussion fails because the parties involved at the end of the day decided that there was ‘absolutely’ nothing common between them: that one party came from Mars and the other from Venus.

A rational human being knows that there is always a solution that can be gotten out of the problem they encounter, that the river upon whose banks they come can be forded if they take into account all the possibilities at hand.
Denying that there is commonality is similar to denying that one has the potential to vanquish what they previously feared, and the fear stems from one believing that they shall fail even before they make the attempt; and the fear of failure stems from pride: that vague form of vanity that makes the individual falsely believe that they are above anything and everything.

The humble individual knows to be humble even when they have the upper hand, for the forces of fate and the powers of karma may change at a whim and the once fortunate may wake up desolate and destitute if they ignore the reality of the unpredictable wheel of fortune.
The fixer of things knows that no problem should be treated in connection with previous problems based on such presumptuous qualities as similarity, for the reality is that no two problems are similar; their uniqueness stemming from nature and the occurrences therein that influence the behaviours of different entities in differing ways despite obvious similarity on the surface.

As much as it is possible that two individuals may see a single entity at the same time, the fact of the matter is that their thought processes and the points of perspective may differ based on myriad issues such as previous knowledge and experience of the entity being viewed.
This applies even in the case where one comes across a problem that needs solving.

One first has to find the unique qualities of the problem first before they jump into the process of its solution, assuming that the techniques or models used previously are appropriate to use in the prevailing problem may prove erroneous as the problem unravels its true form and type.
The problem far often is not the problem itself but the manner in which the process of its solution was approached.
There is just no cut and paste when it comes to dealing with the solution of certain problems, one has to take the whole thing down, deconstruct it piece by piece, and then rejoin it piece by piece.

It is a process that often requires close contact, for the solver to be intimate with the whole intricacies of the problem at hand for the duration of the solving phase.
Once in a while, one is afforded the choice to consult, to seek outside help because the problem is proving too hard to solve, or that the solver has spent too long trying to solve one issue that their sense of judgement is blurred.
What governs the state of mind of the individual determines how that same individual deals with the challenges they face.
An individual reliant on the tutoring of outsiders on how to live in the world shall oftentimes find it hard to solve internal problems.
The individual that uses the outside to supplement what they already have in terms of solutions to prevalent problems stands more of a chance at solving the problems.

This is due to the simple fact that problems at hand naturally have solutions at hand, that is, the solution is in close proximity with the problem.
The solver that sees the problem is in actual terms the solution to the problem if they see themselves as such, or, that they are willing to learn how to solve the problem.

I have heard countless declarations that certain problems in the running of everyday lives are hard to solve or that they cannot be solved.
I disagree because there is a truth that cannot be denied; just like every door has a key, so does every problem have its own key existent in the minds of all those engaged in the process of solving the problem.

We do not break down doors just because we lost the key; instead, we call the locksmith who has all the skills and the tools to open locks.
We do not call the locksmith who comes to our homestead with a crowbar either, for this is the kind of smith that will leave us with a broken door that will cost us more in terms of getting the carpenter that will mend or be forced to replace the door.

The world consists of two forms; the macro and the micro, the big and the small, and the reality of it all is that, what exists in the macro is found in the micro: one just has to establish the commonalities between the two forms to establish how they can be merged for the benefit of all that may at some point in time encounter them.  The missionary that built the first church knew that in time, the system of government would follow suit in terms of structure. Follow suit and solve those problems.

Tsepiso S Mothibi