|
|
9 Oct 2005 @ 00:56, by swanny. Investigation, Intelligence
Now I accidently learned about "sex" at a very early age.
I suppose I was only hmmm well quite young.
I never thought to much of it and probably always assumed
that everybody else knew what I knew and it was no big deal
or that it was or could be a very big deal.
Well I've had it all or well ???? from girls wanting black babies from
me and I'm sort of white, to girls wanting me to rape them for fun or and girls wanting to get pregant though they had their tubes tied and the latest some girl wanting me to get her pregant without having sex at all....
well whatever
and then it made me think how many people really conscious become pregnant to have kids...???
is it mostly just having sex and opps getting pregant...
pregancy then doesn't thus seem to be a very conscious act for the majority in the world..... and thats somewhat sad I suppose cause most seem to young to understand the concept
and maybe its just to darn simple that male plus female plus sex can get you pregant and for those that want to get pregnant without having sex...
well good luck. The chances or probablity of getting pregant with out having sex is pretty high maybe 1 in 1 billion or I suppose there's turkey basters or fertility drugs or sperm banks my my this seems a major disconnect of humanity. On the one hand theres those who are totally clueless which seems the majority and those that spend millions
well whatever.... More >
|
|
|
|
 18 Aug 2005 @ 14:56, by scotty. Investigation, Intelligence
Not many years ago, the intelligence quotient, or IQ, was seen as a strong indicator of the level of success one could attain in life.
The standard IQ test measured raw intelligence, including abilities such as logic and reasoning skills, reading, writing, and analyzing.
Research, however, soon proved that the IQ could not predict academic and professional performance as once had been thought.
There was another element involved: emotional intelligence, also known as the EQ. Emotional intelligence measures one's understanding of emotions, the ability to empathize and work with others, and manage under stress.
IQ seldom changes and most people fall into the top 10% of intellectual intelligence, while EQ can change through self-discipline or a profound experience. Nonetheless, they function in tandem and are both important to personal development and success.
If IQ defines how smart you are, EQ determines how you use that blessing.
Individuals with high EQ's are better equipped to make use of their cognitive abilities. They are often chosen for advancement in their professions or volunteer experiences because they possess the ability to inspire people to action and to make others feel more confident.
People with high IQ's but low EQ's sometimes sabotage themselves because they are unable to relate to their peers, cannot handle stress constructively, and find emotional connections difficult to maintain.
Developing your EQ can help you access your innate intelligence and amplify your empathy, which can lead to career advancement and better relationships.
Practice embracing your uniqueness and the uniqueness of others, expressing your feelings and interpreting those of your friends and family, and being decisive - all of which can help boost your EQ.
Experts say that a heightened EQ can bring happiness because it lets you focus on feelings as well as facts, whereas the IQ is concerned with logic. A strong EQ also makes you more able to access the benefits of your IQ because it takes both to build a successful career, strong relationships, and a fulfilling life.
Want to take an EQ test ? >>> [link]
Becoming emotionally intelligent ... [link]
|
|
|
|
26 Jul 2005 @ 12:45, by bapty. Investigation, Intelligence
We might think that the opposite of diversity is sameness, but ideally we would conform to the true norm in all practical matters while indulging our divergent interests in the abstract. More >
|
|
|
|
 22 Feb 2005 @ 16:09, by jmarc. Investigation, Intelligence
An innocent woman in Florida is about to be put to death. More >
|
|
|
|
 29 Sep 2004 @ 14:55, by scotty. Investigation, Intelligence
Would You buy a house if you were only allowed to see one of its rooms?
Would you by a car if you were allowed to see only its tires and a taillight?
Would you pass judgement on a book after reading only one paragraph?
No - neither would I.
Good judgement means having a broad picture.
Not only does that go for buying houses cars and books it’s even more true in evaluating life.... or people !
One failure doesn’t make a person a failure - one achievement doesn’tmake a person a success either !
. More >
|
|
|
|
20 Jun 2004 @ 18:16, by ov. Investigation, Intelligence
Problems demand by their very definition to be solved because otherwise they would simply be interesting situations and not problems. This structure in itself becomes a problem because the solution is already hidden within the problem analysis and the problem then switches to one of finding a means of obtaining this solution, but this solution may not be the only solution, or even the best solution. It may not even be the desirable solution simply because it usually treats a symptom rather than a cause, since it was the symptom that identified that there was a problem.
Sometimes you have to go beyond procedure and get creative; have to look at things from one or more steps removed and accept that we don't have a clue what the solution is, let alone how to implement it. (But let's save that for another article or this will never get posted -- but somehow I suspect it involves getting to the root causes and tackling the taboo)
This was one of the insights that I picked up last week at a lecture by Bruce Elkin, who was promoting his book for Simplicity and Success. I had been getting his newsletter for awhile and I was thinking of hiring him for a coach but that's a different story. After reading through Ming's NCN collection I thought this point was more relevant.
It occurred to me that Ming's articles, and most of the comments, which were by men, were oriented around a formalized problem solving structure; the engineers and architects of the new civilization. The few females that commented were of a more artistic persuasion and it sounded to me like they didn't think their perspective was being heard, or appreciated. That maybe there are stories and visions that are very important even though they are not concrete enough for the engineer and architect. That maybe we have to birth this baby rather than build it.
Does this fire any neurons? More >
|
|
|
|
 22 Apr 2004 @ 12:45, by jhs. Investigation, Intelligence
Just got (too late, sigh!) the following (by June Collier):
"The New Moon, April 19, 2004, is a partial Solar Eclipse and the second New Moon in Aries this year, it occurs at the last degree (29 Aries 49) of this first sign.."
and..
"The last 10 degrees of Aries or the 3rd Decanate has for its rulership Aries/Sagittarius ruled by Mars/Jupiter. It is the decanate of PROPAGANDA. It is mapped in the starry night sky by the constellation PERSEUS, with the wings of thought on his feet, the helmet of courage on his head, armed with the sword of righteousness, protected by the shield of beneficence, and holding the blood-dripping head of Medusa in one hand."
How patriarchical-chauvinistical, oh well... glad it's over by today.. More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Jan 2004 @ 13:34, by ming. Investigation, Intelligence
I have meditated. I've done Tai Chi, Qi Gong, Kung Fu, DahnHak, Pranic Healing, Tensegrity and Access. I've been healed, acupuncturized, massaged, rebirthed, exorcised and hypnotized. I've done the Scientology advanced levels. I'm an NLP master. A Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist. I'm an energetic healer. I've seen hundreds of past lives. I have had out-of-body experiences, I've done astral traveling. I've been abducted by little grey aliens. I've talked with dead people. I've met my future selves. I've channeled, done automatic writing and psychic readings. I've seen the beginning of the universe, and the end. I've bent spoons and walked on burning coals. I've watched UFOs over Area 51. I've seen shamans and psychics and channelers. I've gotten all my questions answered. I came from Arcturus and I spent some time in the Orion Empire. I've talked to crystals, gotten aromatherapy, ayurvedics, color therapy. I only use holistic health care: naturopatics, homeopathy, herbs, oriental medicine. My DNA is supposedly evolving to 12 strands and I'm well on my way into the 5th dimension. I've gone to hundreds of rituals and danced, chanted, drummed and prayed. I've gone to sacred sites, feng shuied my house. I've gotten my horoscope analyzed many times, my numerology has been done, my palms read. The tarot has given me valuable insights, and I know what shape my chakras are in. And there's probably a lot more I'm forgetting.
Now, to a New Age person all of that is rather normal. Not even particularly impressive. Most people who've followed some kind of metaphysical, spiritual, new age type of path for a number of years will have done a lot of this, and a lot of other things I didn't happen to run into.
And what is cool is that if I recognize somebody else as what can be loosely identified as a New Age Person, we can talk about any of this, and they will most likely not have any reservation about sharing experiences and insights. I don't have to prove anything, and it won't even be an issue. They will measure the truth by what it feels like.
But yet I'm also a bit tired of the New Age. Oh, I'll happily talk about any of this, and tell you what I think worked or didn't work, and why and how. And I enjoyed all of it. But my perspective has changed somewhat. I'm more focused on ordinary everyday life. I'm more skeptical. I'm more interested in keeping a little bit of a distance to the multiple possible explanations for why things are the way they are. I'm interested in bridging different realities and world views. While I live the life that is in front of me. Which is often quite ordinary, sometimes hard, and usually not particularly fantastic.
The New Age became a little too mainstream at some point. Where before it was a bit of an underground activity, pursuing experiences and wisdom out of the ordinary, where the rest of the world was really rigid, limited and analytical. But somehow it became something more watered-down, commonplace, lacking distinctions. So that New Age for many became synonymous with flakyness and lack of critical thinking. Or it became synomynous with "anything goes" and that any weird idea or practice is equally valid as any other. And it all became a good deal less useful. So, personally, I will continue to stretch the boundaries of my existence, and I will continue to choose the tools in my life that work, even if others think they're strange. But I'll probably evaluate things one at a time, and certainly avoid assuming that I'm part of a group that all shares the same views.
Life is a rather fantastic thing in the first place. Full of experiences and possibilities and insights. They might be small or large, deep or shallow. But you don't really need to invoke any fancy belief system to talk about it. The experiences and what you think and feel about them might be enough. And of course you can notice the patterns that link things together. But part of my different perspective is that I try to avoid having all the answers in advance, and rather keeping my mind open to the newness of things.
Now, as I write here in my blog, my new agey friends, or friends from specific metaphysical traditions, might well be puzzled that I wrap things up more than they would expect me to under other circumstances. I.e. I write a lot more conservatively and tentatively than I might otherwise. Referring sort of distantly to news items and books with interesting but theoretical subjects. Where I could just as well provide the straight dope. It is just that I don't necessarily think the dope is quite so straight as it might have seemed. And I no longer claim to know exactly what it is.
And then my more 'normal' friends might be puzzled that I sometimes write about strange hocus-pocus subjects. Borderland weirdness, unproven pseudo-science, conspiracy theories and general superstition. And I might well lose some of them, if they expect that I should just write about RSS Aggregators and blog programming. But I guess I can live with that.
I write about whatever I feel like. But my compromise is that I try to write so that multiple types of audiences might read it. I do believe it is possible to both be authentic and well-balanced.
So I both attempt to write about things I feel the urge to write about, whether it is likely to be generally accepted or not. But I also try to frame what I say in such a way that it might better be understood by more people, and so that I reasonably well can stand behind what I say.
I guess what I'm trying to explain is why I'm writing less new agey than you'd expect. Or more new agey than you'd expect. Depending on who you are. I believe in what I've experienced, what works for me personally, what makes sense, and what I can defend logically. And I keep an open mind to adopting something new that comes along if it proves to work better, or reject it if it doesn't. For some that will mean I'll believe in some outrageous things. For others that my views are pretty tame. More >
|
|
|
|
 1 Nov 2002 @ 03:17, by ming. Investigation, Intelligence
One of the types of deception that personally makes me the most angry is that carried out by socalled Skeptics.
Not that there's anything at all wrong with being skeptical of outlandish claims. I'm skeptical too when I'm presented with new information that doesn't match my previous experience. And I'm skeptical about my own beliefs, and I'll often look for reasons to revise them towards something better.
But there are very influential Skeptics who aren't really skeptics at all, but rather people who use deceit to protect and perpetuate a certain, very conservative, worldview.
I was about to write a lengthy article about that. But there are others who've said roughly what I'd like to say. See Debunking the Debunkers for example. More >
|
|
|
|
 11 Oct 2002 @ 14:06, by ming. Investigation, Intelligence
Some more thoughts and hints about recognizing false or misleading information.
So much information is passing through our lives that we most of the time have to rely on the word of somebody else in deciding what is true or false. Often it is relative strangers talking to us about events and people far away. Journalists, scientists, public officials telling us about what goes on in Iraq, on the moon, in laboratories, or many other places where we can't easily go and verify the story. And we usually wouldn't know how to verify it.
So, what we do is:
We examine the story itself, to figure out if it is internally consistent. I.e. does it agree with itself? We look at the presented credentials of the people who present the story to us. I.e. does their position or qualifications seem to match the story they're telling us?
We look for any claims of endorsenment or verification from people we might know or trust. I.e. who else says this is true? We assess the presentation of the material. Body language, writing style, tone of voice. Is it consistent with somebody telling the truth?
None of that is really any evidence of whether we're being told the truth or not. But they act as initial, superficial steps of due dilligence in trying to verify whether something is real or not. In many cases we don't have time to do anything more than that. More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 Older entries >> |
|
