The Official Info-Sheet to my OCD Rituals
1. Counting
(Answer: When do I stop?) Originally, I would Perform an AwS until the n-th Performance felt right in my brain (Execution). There was no finite limit for me to stop, so theoretically, I could be stuck Performing forever. One of the earliest instances for an AwS under this line of thinking was lining up my laptop along the edge of the table: not only did it need to be parallel to the edge (a horizontal alignment), but it had to be *at* the edge (a vertical alignment). Realistically, I would spend 10-20 minutes on an AwS before achieving Execution. Because of this obvious time sink, I developed a new way of thinking.
I eventually decided that I would attribute Execution after a specific number of times even if the AwS was Not-Executed beforehand to reduce the total amount of time (and, therefore, number of Performances) I would spend on an AwS (Numerical Limit (NL) method). The number I chose was ten (10), largely because of how whole it felt, but I do not remember the exact reason why. However, I soon realized that it was difficult for me to follow this method -- I could not just Perform an AwS up to its NL and assign Execution: it had to feel right in my brain. Consequently, I devolved to Performing an AwS to its NL: if the NL Peformance (in this case, the tenth Performance) satisfied Execution, I move on with my life; otherwise, I repeat the process, turning
where m is the number of repetitions. This meant that even if the first Performance was an Execution, I would have to keep Performing until the NL Performance was an Execution.
Furthermore, I would eventually develop the need for Consecutive Executions (CEs), in which n Performances must be Executions one-after-the-other, where n is an integer. Fortunately, I've only needed 4 CEs in my life so far and not something outrageous like 10.
Frictive forces against my skin became an issue as the repetitive actions caused moderate chafing, convincing me to re-evaluate my methods once more. The next step was the Pre-Action to the Action. The Pre-Action (PA) is a hands-free Performance that sets up the Peformance for the AwS, which allowed me to reduce the number of total Performances overall for the PA-AwS, because the "flow" (more so, the novelty) was more pleasing to my mind. 20 AwS Performances would become 5 PA-AwS Performances, for instance (I still have issues with Execution). The difference with the Pre-Action Performance (PAP) is that instead of counting the number of Performances (completed Actions), I counted the Movements within the Performance.
The most notable example for the PA-AwS is "Checking the Door": the AwS is actually checking the door (Peformances: pushing it closed, checking the locks), the PAP is locating the two nearby corners of the ceiling and Tracing the lines that converge on the corner. Thus, there are 3 Movements for each ceiling corner. Here are some helpful visuals for the PAP, where the order follows as Red, Orange, then Green:
IMAGE
Thus, my most refined state of Counting at this point is (PA-)NL-CE-AwS. In the example shown below, I lack a PA; however, the NL-CE persists for this AwS: NL = 2, CE1 = 2, CE2 = 2. We define the Performance as completing both 1. (Red) and 2. (Green). This means that the 2nd Performance should be Executed (NL), Red and Green should both be Executed consecutively (CE1), and both Performances should be Executed consecutively (CE2) (this does not imply that if CE1 is satisfied that CE2 is also satisfied). Furthermore, the necessary range for CEs is [NL - CE + 1, NL], where CE = CE2 in the example.
IMAGE
That is not the end, however, as I developed another way to Count: finger-counting (FC). It is the newest addition, only being introduced within the last year (circa 2022). It is as simple as it sounds, and the number that I counted to was an offshoot of the original count of 10 but right now it is 8. FC acts as either a PA or a Pre-PA. For an AwS that I do not attach a PA to but needs, because the PA acts as a sort of safety net, I assign it a FC. However, it is rare that an AwS has both PA and FC.
Recall:- AwS: Action with Severity
- NL: Numerical Limit
- CE: Consecutive Execution
- PA: Pre-Action
- FC: Finger-counting
Thus, we observe the following changes:
- AwS: n Performances for an Action, where n is an integer and the nth Performance is an Execution
- NL-AwS: NL Performances for an Action, where NL is an integer and the NLth Performance is an Execution
- NL-CE-AwS: NL Performances for an Action, where NL is an integer and the CEth to NLth Performance are Executions
- FC/PA-(NL-CE-)AwS: NL Performances effectively reduced by PA (NL = 10 to NL = 2, for example), where NL and PA is an integer and PA < NL. NL and CE not always necessary/enforced. In the case of FC, it acts more as a supplement and does not always affect/change the structure of NL-CE-AwS like PA does, but FC and PA are similar in purpose.