Disarmament in self-righteousness

I have shared the idea that the proverbial tree of the knowledge of good and evil would better be called the tree of the perception of the knowledge of good and evil.  That perception springs naturally from what appears to be an innate human drive to be right, including defending our views and actions as not just right for us, but right in general.  Often it seems not enough to acknowledge others' prerogative to disagree with, even to disapprove of, what we think and do.  Then it seems weak and inadequate just to say that we are thinking and doing what seems right to us.  It often seems irresistible to believe, and to assert, that we are right.

If we believe self-righteousness produces and intensifies conflict in relationships of all kinds, between friends, family members, colleagues, communities and nations; if we believe disarmament in self-righteousness would reduce the number and intensity of such conflicts; on what basis, other than continued self-righteousness, do we think such disarmament should and will start with others?

Disarmament in self-righteousness begins at home.  It begins with each of us.

The most important job and who decides what it is

Moment to moment, each of us has only one most important job to do.
We decide what it is: that one most important job is, consciously or not, one of our most frequent choices.  It is the essence of our priorities.
Is our most important job a general one, such taking care of others, or of ourselves?  
Is it a specific job such as doing a particular thing well, or taking full advantage of an opportunity?
How often, and when, and why does our most important job change?
On what basis do we choose our most important job, moment to moment?  Fear?  Need?  Getting what we can when we can?  Yearning?  Whim?  Laziness?  Self pity?  Self care?  Growth?  Fidelity to our values?

What happens when we pay attention to whether and how our choices are consistent with our most important job?