You're trying to stop eating sugar. You ate sugar. Now there's a fight. The fight is between I ate sugar and I shouldn't have eaten sugar. Two pieces. One is fact. The other is a comparison to an imagined version of you who wouldn't have eaten sugar. The fight is between the eater and the non-eater. The non-eater doesn't exist. The non-eater is an idea. The fight is the eater against the idea.
K mapped this structure across all inner conflict. Every conflict is what is against what should be. The what is is fact. You ate sugar. You got angry. You flinched. You wanted the thing. The what should be is an ideal. The better you. The version you imagine. The gap between them is where conflict lives. Close the gap by deleting the ideal, and the conflict ends.
This is K's most practical move. People reach for the ideal as if it would help. The ideal is the problem. The ideal generates the gap. The gap generates the conflict. The conflict consumes the energy that might otherwise have been available to be with what is. The "work" of inner conflict is the gap arguing with itself.
You can feel the gap. It has a shape. The tension of two sides. Drop the ideal and the gap collapses. There's just the fact: you ate the sugar. The fact, without the comparison, has almost no charge. The charge was in the comparison the whole time. Take a breath. The chest opens.
The conflict isn't between you and the thing you did. The conflict is between the actual you and the ideal you. Burn the ideal and there's no longer two of you to fight.