|
|
 10 Sep 2007 @ 02:45, by jhs. Communication
Just a few words on some words that have been usurped by various parties in order to confuse or diffuse the clarity of people's thinking:
Originally, pronoia denotes the knowledge (noia) of the inner working and the way things are going, in Hermetic Ifa the knowledge of the Odu, the 256 fractal components of the Multiverse.
Epinoia denoted in gnostics the 'knowledge of the center', resulting in the 'pleroma' effect or, if super-charged with the Girapoli process in a peakstate specific to the polarity invoked.
Paranoia originally was the 'knowledge of the beyond'. Of course, for any modern scientist this would equal craziness and so it has been coined successfully. Congratulations to all those twisters for rendering a sacred term to being the equivalent of lunatic.
Morphonoia, much less known, is the knowledge of the Multiverse via its intrinsic structures, some say 'sacred geometry' as if there would be also an 'non-sacred geometry'. In Hermetic Ifa we explore/exploit this knowledge systematically via Skywork.
I admire Wikipedia, but the terms above one got messed up badly, so don't even bother to look it up there unless you're psychiatrist (that means literally a 'sad soul', hmm) in need of a justification to prescribe some more pills for some more invented 'disorders'...
In a nutshell, if you'd call me 'paranoic', I certainly would feel honored. More >
|
|
|
|
31 Jul 2007 @ 18:07, by swanny. Communication
Humanity Sucks
July 31, 2007
Tuesday
Earth
HUMANITY SUCKS!
Well it is perhaps a given fact and truism that we must accept, that humanity or we suck. So having established this common fact. Do we want to do anything about it. We could try to change or improve ourselves or maybe just kill ourselves off, which we seem at times to be quite far along the way in doing.
We suck! Well gosh darn why didn't someone tell us. No one knew? Well okay we can qualify that a little I guess that most of us suck or the ones the run the show suck and cause us to suck in the process. The fact is that the majority of us would seem to suck and as a case in point are sucking the life blood as we know it, out of the planet as we know it. Yes things change and yes few have sustainable principles and the ones that do we have a tendancy to cruxify or assacinate which just demos our prevalance of suckiness further. And yes we adapt quite well as we seem to have adapted right into suckhood to show our suckiness?
Well s there we have it then. Humanity sucks. We suck. Don't say you didn't know. But knowing that what does that change? Well if you want to change you have to identify the offensive aspect and then take steps or measures to address if some are so inclined. Do I suck? Well I'm sort of human so I guess yes I do suck. Do you suck, well you'll have to be the judge of that but offhand chances are you do, as studies indicate that only 1 % of humanity is operating at potential.
So we've got about 7,777,777,777 suckers and 1% actually natural people.
Anyway... so what to do?
Well I guess accept our suckiness is the first step and perhaps try to define what unsuckiness is. What the actual right way of living is. Well no I don't know because I have a disability of sorts and 99% don't know so could the 1 % that do know raise their hands and help us out here?
And how or who are these "natural folks"?
Well there was Moses, and Buddha and jesus and Lincoln and Luther and Kenndey
and Billie Hughes and Mother Teresa and Joan of Arc and King Alfred and well Mahatma Gandhi and well theres a few but theyre all dead...
hmmmm?
Alfred More >
|
|
|
|
 10 Jun 2007 @ 13:10, by ming. Communication
So, since last week I'm hooked on microblogging. I don't know if "microblogging" is the best word for the phonomenon, but it will do, I guess. It is sort of a mix between chat, instant messaging, blogging, and widgets for showing one's current status or location in one's sidebar. I'm in jaiku and twitter, accessing both through twitku.
One posts maybe a couple or a handful of one-liners per day. Doesn't really take any time. Although it is a bit addictive to glance at the page often, to see what people are saying. But not that much different from glancing out the window once in a while to see what weather it is. It is sort of a peripheral thing. You notice that somebody's waiting for their luggage in an airport somewhere, somebody else is preparing a gourmet meal, a third is thinking about some important question, and a fourth got a sunburn from being outside. Nothing necessarily important, certainly mostly not anything that would warrant an e-mail or a phonecall or a blog post. But it keeps people on your radar screen. You don't have to respond, but you can, if something somehow rings a bell. It doesn't have to be your close friends either. It is surprisingly meaningful, even if it is people you've never met, but you have some kind of interest in what they're up to.
It occurs to me that it is a bit like Dialogue according to David Bohm. Oh, it is more casual, but there are some interesting correlations.
In this context "dialogue" is used about a particular type of group interaction. A group of people sit down in a circle. Initially they might be quiet. When somebody feels like speaking, they speak, and everybody listens. Nobody needs to answer it, and nobody would argue. But if you're inspired to say something else, you do so. It might have been inspired by what somebody else said, or it might not. Everybody's sort of speaking to the space in the middle of the circle. We might have different ideas about what the subject is, but we're speaking into the same space. And a dialogue develops. It will be about something, and it might not be clear in advance what exactly it will be about. It will not be about one thing, and different people go off in different directions, but there will also be a certain coherence and evolution in it.
In a microblogging space, some of these things happen too. I watch a screen where a few dozen people say something once in a while, and I can say something too. Interestingly, they aren't all watching the same screen, as they have different groups of friends than I do, although they overlap. They aren't all there at the same time either, and they aren't all paying attention. But once in a while somebody feels like saying something. That will be something that relates to what's going on for them at the moment, and it will also be something they feel like saying into that fuzzy kind of space, usually without saying it to anybody in particular. They typically don't expect a response either. Other people do the same. Whether you directly comment on anything else or not, what you say will necessarily be colored a bit by what you see already on the screen.
I have tried in the past to deliberately create dialogue spaces online, usually in the form of a chat room, where I carefully would try to explain the rules. You speak into the common space, you say your truth, you don't argue or defend your opinions. It isn't a discussion, not an argument to win, rather a shared inquiry. No rules, really, other than that you shouldn't screw it up. People can say whatever they feel like saying, as long as it is what they perceive and what they feel needs to be said, and not just an attempt of making somebody else wrong. And I've found that it was very difficult to do online. Easier to do in person, where one has non-verbal cues, etc, and one knows whether one is on the same page or not. But a chat room easily develops into something else.
So, ironically, this kind of microblogging flow is a good deal more like a dialogue than what one would tend to get if one tried to create a good dialogue space online. Even though it isn't at all trying to be any space for deep inquiry or anything like that. It is not very profound that somebody is on their way to the market, or they're playing with some new website or something. But the atmosphere created is a shared space, where people say what they experience, in little soundbites, without fluff, without much need to be posturing or defending anything, and sometimes one perceives things together. And there's some kind of intangible thread that goes through that.
Although it isn't clear where that might take us, it is entirely possible that this might be fertile ground for some kind of collective intelligence to emerge in. More >
|
|
|
|
2 Apr 2007 @ 21:10, by ming. Communication
Scott Adams on Dilbert Blog:I’m reading a great book called “Influence: Science and Practice” by Robert B. Cialdini. It’s full of research and anecdotes about how to influence people. It’s a real eye-opener.
One of the most potent forms of persuasion has to do with people’s innate need to be consistent. Studies show that people will ignore logic and information to be consistent. (In other words, we are moist robots.) According to the research, humans are hardwired for consistency over reason. You already knew that: People don’t switch political parties or religions easily. What you didn’t know is how quickly and easily a manipulator can lock someone into a position.
For example, researchers asked people to write essays in support of a random point of view they did not hold. Months later, when surveyed, the majority held the opinion they wrote about, regardless of the topic. Once a person commits an opinion to writing – even an opinion he does not hold – it soon becomes his actual opinion. Not every time, but MOST of the time. The people in these experiments weren’t exposed to new information before writing their contrived opinions. All they did was sit down and write an opinion they didn’t actually have, and months later it became their actual opinion. The experiment worked whether the volunteers were writing the pro or the con position on the random topic.
Most of the truly stupid things done in this world have to do with this consistency principle. For example, once you define yourself as a loyal citizen of Elbonia, you do whatever the King of Elbonia tells you to do, no matter how stupid that is. And your mind invents reasons as to why dying is a perfectly good life strategy. It's an odd thing. We bend over backwards to appear to be normal and consistent and logical, and in doing so, we tend to become easy to manipulate, and we'll do crazy things without even blinking. More >
|
|
|
|
 14 Jul 2006 @ 02:12, by mre. Communication
Heiner, your "Dialogues and Conversations" article has put my head in a swirl! It almost makes me feel that if we can actually understand something, anything, that something must therefore be simplistic and not representative of reality. Conversely, since I don't fully understand your article, it really might be on the right track!!! But, kidding aside, it is well to be reminded that things are more complicated than they seem, and multiply that by 7 when dealing with global issues. More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Jul 2006 @ 23:06, by i2i. Communication
"Moreover, though this is so,
flowers fall when we cling to them,
and weeds only grow when we dislike them."
—Dogen (1200-1253), Shobogenzo
More >
|
|
|
|
 11 Jul 2006 @ 23:50, by ming. Communication
"Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Choose your
words, for they become actions. Understand your actions, for they become habits. Study your habits, for they will become your character. Develop your character, for it becomes your destiny." --Anonymous I was just watching The Secret, a 1.5 hour film about .... well, it isn't that it is that secret, or is it? The Law of Attraction. A bunch of inspiring motivational speakers and authors tell you, very well, and very convincingly, about what might be the biggest secret you need to know in your life. It costs a couple of dollars to see it online, but if, like me, you're on a Mac Intel that their video system can't handle, you can look around and find it on YouTube or in Wikipedia.
Next to my bed is the book Ask and it is Given, which teaches exactly the same thing. And, well, there are lots and lots of books that do so. The Master Key System is a cheap e-book. There are lots, and there has been for a long time. In 1957, Earl Nightingale, the co-founder of the Nightingale-Conant Corporation, and a famous motivational speaker and author made a record called "The Greatest Secret". Same secret.
And, yes, lots of folks would automatically be completely unwilling to accept such a far-out and naive new age idea. Doesn't matter. The proof is in the pudding. It is a concept that pretty much is self-proving. Except for the annoying aspect that if it doesn't work for you, it is for the same reason as why it works, and one is quite likely to reject it.
The simple point is that you get what you focus on in life. You get the types of experiences that you consistently think about, that you feel you're likely to get, that you expect and that you believe in. You attract to you that which you're emanating.
With what we've learned from quantum physics that doesn't have to be as outlandish an idea as you might think. Who is observing and how they're observing will influence what is observed. You can't say with certainty what is there without taking into consideration how it is observed and by who. Well, certainly at the quantum level, but, to the chagrin of some scientists, a lot of folks have found that to apply quite well to life in general. It is rather easy to understand, and in many ways easy to demonstrate. You go out into traffic and look for red cars, and you'll see a whole lot. Our senses are filters, as are our brains, so if you focus on a particular wavelength of stuff, it should be no great surprise that you'll get it. It should not be an extraordinary mental jump to the hypothesis that life works like that all the time. Whatever you focus on, you'll see more of it. Or more tangibly, you'll get more of it. Whatever you're thinking all the time, you'll be it. Whatever you're believing will tend to be validated. You think you have problems, and you're looking for problems - you'll have problems.
It can be put very simply by calling it "attraction". You attract that which, uhm, you're attracting. I.e that which you're broadcasting strongly that you want. If you tell everybody you know that you're looking to adopt a kitten, you'll attract a kitten in no time. No surprise. If you didn't tell anybody, it would be harder. But even if you told just yourself, and you thought a lot about getting a kitten, you'd probably succeed. You'd probably succeed a little faster if you put a picture of a cute kitten on your refrigerator, and you looked at that every day. That would make you think about it, feel positive about it, look forward to it, look for it, and be ready for it. And if any kitten should be available in your environment, you'd be quite likely to run into it.
The funny, or not so funny, thing is that it works just the same whether you think about the positive or negative version of it. I.e. whether you want it or "don't want it". It is a well-know fact for a hypnotist or an NLP practitioner that negatives don't matter at all in the mind. Whether you think "I don't want to burn myself" or you think "I want to burn myself", it has pretty much the same result. Both will be a message to yourself, to your nervous system, and to your general environment that you're looking to burn yourself. Psychology in general seems to be unfamiliar with that, as are usually public leaders. That's what gives rise to stupid campaigns like "Say NO to Drugs!". Or "Don't Smoke!", or "Don't have Sex!" or whatever it is. It is like when I tell you "Don't think about a pink elephant!". You can not even process what I'm saying without thinking about a pink elephant in some way. Whether there's a "no" or a "don't" in there or not, it is a suggestion to think about what I'm putting forward. And a hypnotist can tell you that it is probably more effective as a suggestion if it is camouflaged as a negative than if it is as a positive order. "You don't have to.. Get really relaxed!" works much better than "Get relaxed right now!"
So, same thing with your own thoughts and feelings. Whether you're getting worked up about wanting something or about wanting it to go away, if you spend a lot of energy on creating it in your thoughts and feelings, you're just the same attracting the actual experience to you.
That gives the rich-get-richer, poor-get-poorer effect. I.e. you automatically get more of what you already have. No sinister motives have to be assigned to anybody to explain that. If you make a lot of money, and you have proof of being good at it, and you spend a lot of thoughts on imagining how you'll do even better, and you look for it, and you expect it ... then you'll be very likely to succeed, and get more of it. If you spend your energy on lamenting what you don't have, and how hard and impossible it is, and you react negatively to the obstacles you find in your way, you're naturally attracting more of the same.
The hard part here is of course how to change one's direction, if one doesn't like it. Mainly because of that feedback loop. You see what you don't like, you get irritated about it, think about it, curse it, complain about it. It is hard to suddenly spend one's creative powers on something entirely different. It is so much easier when one already is going in that direction.
If one decides to give it a try, one might quite likely give up too easily. Lots of people believe in the power of positive thinking. So, maybe you'll start saying affirmations. You might tell yourself every morning that everything is perfect, and all that you need is coming to you. And, well, if you start believing it, and you act accordingly, you're probably good. That might do it. But if you don't really feel it, it doesn't matter what you say to yourself. The point is that you attract that which you believe, that which you sincerely feel, consistently. And if you start feeling something different, it might take weeks before you see any result of that. And in the meantime you might well have decided that it didn't work, and you go back to your old unsuccessful ways of trying to change your world. In order to change and to change your circumstances, you have to keep going in a new direction long enough for it to actually manifest.
In my own experience, I've never found anything to contradict the law of attraction. I've worked as a counselor with hundreds of clients, and I've always found that they had a life that corresponded with their internal make-up. They had pretty much the successes and failures that they expected to have. They could do or not do pretty much what they believed they could. They might not be happy with what they got, but they generally had gotten exactly what they were asking for. And the only workable approach to personal change I've found would be to change your mind and start asking for something else, and believing you ought to have something else happening.
Despite that, I must admit that I personally find it as hard as anybody else to change my direction in life if things aren't going my way. At least sometimes I do. When things are flowing in a good direction, it is easy to make more good things happen. But if proof is stacking up that you aren't doing well at it, it is a little too easy to believe it.
Then it is nice to have some good meta-beliefs. Like, personally, I believe that things always work out. It is a little vague, and that doesn't tell me when or how, but I know that all problems eventually get sorted out. I mean, I've made it this far, so of course they do. And it is nice to be able to look back at past experiences where one has accomplished something against the odds, simply by keeping focused on it.
The Law of Attraction is kind of annoying, unless one has mastered it. You get that which you put out. Pisses me off a bit. It would be so nice to blame somebody else if you don't succeed in something. Much harder to admit one just didn't agree with oneself well enough. But on the other hand, it could be the most positive and mind-blowing thing to know about life, in comparison with which all other details will pale. Wherever you currently are, you can do whatever you want, as long as you're clear about it and you focus on it. More >
|
|
|
|
6 Jul 2006 @ 22:43, by i2i. Communication
 More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Jul 2006 @ 00:05, by i2i. Communication
Non-sequiturs often appear under the form of unintentional (sophomoric), or deliberate (trolling) disconnected comments, or changes in subject.
The comment below was removed either for its lack of clarity as to its purpose (because of style or content) or because of its apparent lack of relevance to the topic at hand from the thread on which it was originally posted by its author.
Not all such comments are sophomoric in nature, nor the result of trolling, so this comment was posted here so as to offer an avenue for those interested in the topic or style (e.g. mediumistic automatism, absurdism, etc.) which might be present in such or such comment independently of the context in which the comment was posted.
The mission of TrollXing is one of understanding. The comment featured on the present post will only remain here with its author's permission and will, of course, be removed upon simple request by its author, if said author signifies in a comment below that he or she wishes the post to be removed. More >
|
|
|
|
 16 May 2006 @ 20:28, by ida. Communication
More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Older entries >> |
|
