(A pi-spective is where you write about something using only 314 words)
Persistence is a good thing but beyond a certain point it isn't. We don't know what the point is in advance and it's contextual. We bring our beliefs about the world and ourselves into the equation. We might be able to calculate the right point to back out given an 'average' person, but such creatures don't exist.
We admire persistence as a general rule. And its a good quality to have on the whole. If something in life is worth doing then there's going to be some element of difficulty associated to it. The more important and the greater the change the more opposition we encounter. Persistence is important here. But what fuels persistence? When does it become blind bloody-mindedness? When is cutting our losses a good thing? And for that matter, when is cutting our losses a bad thing?
Part of the issue is that we don't have foreknowledge of where we end up in life. Sometimes calling it quits early turns out to be really important. We get time 'back' and have the opportunity to reassess things and check our frames of reference. The opposite also holds true. "Why did you give up so early?" This is where the whispers of 'quitter' start to emerge. And no-one wants to be a quitter.
So where is the balance point? My sense is that it's about taking care to reassess things as you go. We have a tendency to push the point too far and imposing our will on the environment becomes an act of ego rather than creativity. This is about checking in on yourself and asking the question: 'Is doing this still the right thing?'
Ignore the loaded issues of admiring persistence or not being a quitter. Stay present and keep checking in that you're seeing things as they are, not what you want them to be. Let go to take hold.
Image via BossFight