11/11/2025
For some of us, action is not initiated by routine, obligation or social expectation but by meaning, because of a structural feature of cognition.
The capacity to engage with a task is closely tied to whether that task holds significance within our internal framework. If the task has meaning, action is possible. If the task does not have meaning, the ability to act may be absent, regardless of intention or external pressure.
This is constantly misinterpreted as avoidance, laziness, lack of willpower, emotional immaturity, you name it. However, those interpretations rely on the assumption that motivation is universally produced by the same mechanisms. It is not.
There are multiple motivational architectures. One is compliance based, where action arises from expectation, habit or perceived obligation. Another is meaning based, where action arises from relevance, connection and internal coherence. Many of us operate within the second system.
Here, meaning functions as the cognitive activation switch if you will. When something matters, emotionally, ethically, intellectually or relationally, the brain organises around it. Attention becomes available. Sequencing becomes possible. Movement starts. This is all to highlight that the system is working as designed.
When meaning is absent, the task lacks structure, it cannot be held mentally as there is no accessible entry point. We may understand the task, recognise its importance to others and still be unable to act. So, the issue here is access.
The biggest problem is cultural interpretation, because most social environments assume a compliance based motivational structure. They expect tasks to be completed because they need doing, because everyone has to, which unfortunately creates a misalignment, on account of trying harder does not produce meaning
This is not to say that meaning is not dynamic, because it is and it changes in response to context, internal state, relational safety, how the task sits within identity and whether the outcome feels real.
For example, a task that was once accessible may become inaccessible if the meaning structure shifts. This shift is often understood by the person immediately and somatically, even if they cannot yet articulate it and this is why sustainability cannot be assumed from initial capacity.
A meaning oriented system is consistent to its own organising principle. It is consistent with values, coherence, purpose, internal logic. In contrast, it is inconsistent with arbitrary instruction, unbound routine, tasks performed for the sake of it.
To establish where all of this sits, we could ask:
What does this connect to?
What value does it serve?
How does this fit into my narrative of what matters?
What becomes possible if I complete it?
What becomes compromised if I don’t?