What ought?

 I've been thinking about the self referent problem and how it generates contradictions. (More in math and programming) and honestly I don't know the technical details super well including the vocab.

And I'm thinking, on the cusp of making, some sort of breakthrough in a way of changing my thinking. So under thinking system A and under such and such assumptions/facts, it leads to the logical consequence that thinking system B is superior (for whatever reason). And then I jump into thinking system B and the jump in itself because questionable under thinking system B. And if it, say does not hold water, then, it is hard to by the same route get to thinking system B, and so... you kinda maybe have to hold the decision to be in thinking system B using the vestiges of thinking system A (that was your previous best alternative) while seeking self justification under thinking system B. This is very hard, and logically quite... hard to maintain integrity.

Let me try to illustrate simplistically.

Let's say I buy into the whole idea of self improvement, wanting to be the best I can be, working hard to achieve my goals, so on and so forth. And I also hold facts of Christianity to be true. Logically speaking, they will have to be merged together. And let's say in this case, the best version that I can be is to be as much like Jesus as possible.

But say once I take on the thinking of Jesus, and let's for simplicity sake say that his thinking is simplified to pleasing God. Under my new concept of pleasing God being primary motivation, the whole agenda of self improvement is supposed to crumble away or fade into secondary or tertiary. The self is supposed to die. But the whole quest to get here was to fulfil ultimate self. (Yes there are many ways of patching this particular illustration such as, ultimate self IS the self dying, or that pleasing God can be justified under it's own framework). Point is, that wasn't the path taken to get there. 

And so there is this abrupt, idk, leap of faith. Leap in the sense of you must necessarily destroy the earlier thinking that brought you to where you are and so for some time, you are hanging, floating on nothing.

Idk if this makes sense to you, but it seems to me this strongly proves(?) (if not proves maybe hints) that there is this great limit of rationality w.r.t ultimate worldviews. And maybe this is evidence for requiring external help to change. (Especially for this particular example).

Ok so sorry if this totally didn't make sense to you. I will agree that this wasn't the clearest but wanted to try.