Heating up the conversation, getting loud, intense, guttural, and very charged comes when you speak with your intention from the lower chakras. You can really start cooking if you put your intention on the orange chakra; and you're an unstoppable ball of screaming energy when you focus on the root chakra. Then if you draw your energy back up to the heart, throat, mind's eye, or crown, you speak, respectively with more and more slow, serene, more highly-calculated, "higher source" area.
In communicating through voice, you draw from all chakras, independently, at different times.
Each chakra has the equal amount of deliberateness, sincerity, and intention, but drawing from different chakras to communicate will vary the cadence, speed, tonal inflection, and vigorousness of body language and hand gesturesde. Depending on the listener or audience, some chakras will be more poignant, convincing, and communicate the message more clearly. For example, with an easily distracted youthful teen, the wild, rockstar-like, deep guttural, quick-movement animation from the root chakra will instantly draw their intention. However, to an elderly person, or very sensitive and wise person, such an explosive interaction would frighten them or cause them to deactivate as a listener. In the case of an older and/or calmer person communicating from the throat and above chakras would be the most effective circuitry.
Experiment with different chakra schematics, but then develop an ability to assess which chakra locus of communication derives the most effective message beforehand. Being able to study a person like the lion and then commit with curious intensity like the shark to whatever chakra communicational level is appropriate at that time is your key to being not just an effective, but a synergistic, compelling, alluring, and captivating communicator.
8.04.2006
Sharks: Aquatically Agog
Here's another factoid about sharks. Sharks are interested; they're the oceanic Curious Georges. If you're ever channel-surfing (and I know you watch television), stop by AnimalPlanet and check-out the pupil dilation of, say, a lion and that of a shark. The lion has a small little dot, an ioata of a miniscule pupil, while the entire sharks' eyes is just one enlarged, gigantic pupil orb. Obviously deeper water sharks have larger eyes compared to surface sharks, but you can't even see the iris (and yes sharks have cornea, retina, iris, and pupil, like we and most vertebrates do) of most sharks because they are so enlarged and inquisitive about their salty world. Look at the way they test out their environment, too; they chomp at an unknown object not out of malice, but sheer curiosity and a systematically inquiring playfulness. Predators of the sea, they may be; but calling a shark a "man-eater" is a major misnomer -- aquatically agog is more like it.
Another cool factoid about sharks: they see slideshows where humans see movies. "The minimum frequency of flashes or images at which an eye can no longer separate [images] is termed flicker fusion frequency" (1). In other words, the typical 24 frames/second rate of movies causes us to see seemless motion and flow of what is really rapidly-fired still frames. Sharks, operating at a 45 flashes/second flicker fusion see a rapid-fire slideshow with distinct, unmoving pictures, where humans see a seemless movie.
Our evolution as more advanced beings basically originates from our capacity to create technology; the earliest being building fires, cooking food, burying the dead, and like. But losing touch with our taxonomical relationship with other animals, as a hominid is asking for serious "de-evolution". A counter-balance must be maintained because technology and nature -- because technology is a great indicator of evolution but nature is the the supreme intelligence, the greatest technology of all.
The first human-like, hominid species is 4.4 million years old, and the oldest homo sapiens are 250,000 to 400,000 years old, and the modern human is 40,000 years old. Compared to sharks, our least evolved ancestor, the Australopithecus afarensis, ape is only 1/90 the age of sharks, and sharks are 1,000 times as old as the modern homo sapien. We can learn alot from the elderly!
As is true for all animal behavior and characteristics, we can take a major message from their clarity. We should embace the constant curiosity of a shark, but balance that by peppering it with stolid vigil of the lion. We, as humans may considered ourselves "more evolved" than lions, tigers, bears, and sharks, oh my(!), but if we forget to learn from the habits of animals, our "evolution" is insubstantial and at best, trivial. Weaving in the behavioral dance and specialties of animals doesn't cause us to devolve, but vivifies our existence.
1. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/vision.htm
Another cool factoid about sharks: they see slideshows where humans see movies. "The minimum frequency of flashes or images at which an eye can no longer separate [images] is termed flicker fusion frequency" (1). In other words, the typical 24 frames/second rate of movies causes us to see seemless motion and flow of what is really rapidly-fired still frames. Sharks, operating at a 45 flashes/second flicker fusion see a rapid-fire slideshow with distinct, unmoving pictures, where humans see a seemless movie.
Our evolution as more advanced beings basically originates from our capacity to create technology; the earliest being building fires, cooking food, burying the dead, and like. But losing touch with our taxonomical relationship with other animals, as a hominid is asking for serious "de-evolution". A counter-balance must be maintained because technology and nature -- because technology is a great indicator of evolution but nature is the the supreme intelligence, the greatest technology of all.
The first human-like, hominid species is 4.4 million years old, and the oldest homo sapiens are 250,000 to 400,000 years old, and the modern human is 40,000 years old. Compared to sharks, our least evolved ancestor, the Australopithecus afarensis, ape is only 1/90 the age of sharks, and sharks are 1,000 times as old as the modern homo sapien. We can learn alot from the elderly!
As is true for all animal behavior and characteristics, we can take a major message from their clarity. We should embace the constant curiosity of a shark, but balance that by peppering it with stolid vigil of the lion. We, as humans may considered ourselves "more evolved" than lions, tigers, bears, and sharks, oh my(!), but if we forget to learn from the habits of animals, our "evolution" is insubstantial and at best, trivial. Weaving in the behavioral dance and specialties of animals doesn't cause us to devolve, but vivifies our existence.
1. http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/vision.htm
A Moralistic Message of Sharks?
Shark attacks are not menacing or threatening in terms of frequency. LIghtning and bicycle crashes kill far more people more frequently. It's the fear that a beast, atleast in the water, seems to be extraordinarily superior to humans is what is so fearful. Not being on top of the food chain, predatory ladder is why there has been so much attention drawn to shaks.
Out of all the man-over-board, sinking ship events -- Titanic, Louisitania, hundreds of others -- the Uranian-carrying, Bomb-component wielding Indianapolis was the single-most largest episode assault by the dinosaur-aged fish of the deep. The July 30, 1945 USS Indianapolis had just delivered crucial Uranium components to the secret base of Tinian, that which would soon make the atomic bomb "Little Boy", which was soon dropped over Hiroshima. The ship, crewed by 1,196, was hit by Japanese submarine commander Hashimoto's torpedo, and sank in 12 minutes. It had just 300 that went down with the ship, but only 316 of the remaining 896 crewmembers were stripped off by frigid waters and sharks. It primarily was the Tiger and the Oceanic White-tip sharks that did the dirty work, chomping off roughly 586 men at a rate of about 100 per day, or a human being consumed every fifteen minutes for 5 days straight.
Is it a coincidence that the vessel that delivered the final component for the single largest destruction devic met such a gruesome fate not brought on by fellow man, but by nature? The sharks operating as so divinely retributional mechanism for delivering the bomb components is debatable, but it certainly is karmically provocative.
Think about it, out of all the SOS shipwrecks scenarios only the boat carrying components for the largest bomb on the planet was paid a serious visit by the 400 million year-old* fully-cartilaginous sea fish. Out of all the abandoned ship stories where sharks could have picked off floating survivors like bobbing for apples at a birthday party, isn't it "ironic" that the ONLY episode of sharks consuming shipwreck survivors occurred off a vessel with a destructive mission (delivering the Bomb components)? Does Nature have a moralistic and gruesome message?
*Very cool side fact: Sharks are 400 million years old. Can you FATHOM how old that is? The oldest human evolutionary chain is 2.5 million years old, meaning that sharks are 160 times older than the oldest hominid evolutionary chain, but the most modern humans are 10,000 years old, making sharks 40,000 times older than modern homo sapiens!! 40,000 times old! jeez! Sharks are 2,000 times as old as neanderthals, which date back as far as 200,000 BP (before present). Therefore, respectively homo habilus, neanderthals, and moder humans are, repsectively 0.6% ( or 1/160), 0.05% (or 1/2,000) , and 0.0025% (or 1/40,000) the age of sharks!!!!
Out of all the man-over-board, sinking ship events -- Titanic, Louisitania, hundreds of others -- the Uranian-carrying, Bomb-component wielding Indianapolis was the single-most largest episode assault by the dinosaur-aged fish of the deep. The July 30, 1945 USS Indianapolis had just delivered crucial Uranium components to the secret base of Tinian, that which would soon make the atomic bomb "Little Boy", which was soon dropped over Hiroshima. The ship, crewed by 1,196, was hit by Japanese submarine commander Hashimoto's torpedo, and sank in 12 minutes. It had just 300 that went down with the ship, but only 316 of the remaining 896 crewmembers were stripped off by frigid waters and sharks. It primarily was the Tiger and the Oceanic White-tip sharks that did the dirty work, chomping off roughly 586 men at a rate of about 100 per day, or a human being consumed every fifteen minutes for 5 days straight.
Is it a coincidence that the vessel that delivered the final component for the single largest destruction devic met such a gruesome fate not brought on by fellow man, but by nature? The sharks operating as so divinely retributional mechanism for delivering the bomb components is debatable, but it certainly is karmically provocative.
Think about it, out of all the SOS shipwrecks scenarios only the boat carrying components for the largest bomb on the planet was paid a serious visit by the 400 million year-old* fully-cartilaginous sea fish. Out of all the abandoned ship stories where sharks could have picked off floating survivors like bobbing for apples at a birthday party, isn't it "ironic" that the ONLY episode of sharks consuming shipwreck survivors occurred off a vessel with a destructive mission (delivering the Bomb components)? Does Nature have a moralistic and gruesome message?
*Very cool side fact: Sharks are 400 million years old. Can you FATHOM how old that is? The oldest human evolutionary chain is 2.5 million years old, meaning that sharks are 160 times older than the oldest hominid evolutionary chain, but the most modern humans are 10,000 years old, making sharks 40,000 times older than modern homo sapiens!! 40,000 times old! jeez! Sharks are 2,000 times as old as neanderthals, which date back as far as 200,000 BP (before present). Therefore, respectively homo habilus, neanderthals, and moder humans are, repsectively 0.6% ( or 1/160), 0.05% (or 1/2,000) , and 0.0025% (or 1/40,000) the age of sharks!!!!
7.29.2006
Book Facts -- Angst, Bildungsroman, Banned
Utterly fascinating: Kierkegaard believed that from the freedom given to mankind, man is in constant fear of failing in his responsibilities to God, producing a strong sensation of angst. But God wouldn't want deep-rooted spiritual conditions of insecurity and despair. There is nothing to fear; angst is an illusion! So is ennui or boredom, when the mind if fully engaged. Shame, according to John Bradshaw, is an "emotion that lets us know we are finite". Wrong! It's an emotion that conceals and denies our capacity. Shaming destroys dignity, it condemns potential. We can ameliorate any limitations by immmediately absolving ourself from self-induced or external shame. Anthropologists say that shame is violation of cultural values, while guilt is violation of internal rules. Both are unsatisfactory, invalid emotions, but knowing their origins can help pinpoint the origin of those false emotions.
While Holden Caulfield operates as the main character in the bildungsroman (a novel about spiritual growth), it's ironic that he resists maturity, condemning adulthood for its phoniness, superficiality, and hypocrisy. Additionally, this is the ultimate novel to witness the Eriksonian stage of growth "Isolation vs. Intimacy" as Holden is drawn to Sally Hayes, but then pushes her away out of need for isolation. After being the ultimate Holden Caulfield, I understand this book and can attest that there is some veracity in his claims.
Yet there is a rich dichotomy to be divulged regarding the Holden Caulfield to "Phlegmatic adult" spectrum -- neither extreme is desirable. Seizing and connecting with the childhood curiosity and honesty is incommensurately important, but Holden's discrepancies -- over-adherence to isolation and loneliness and reluctance and sexual immaturity -- to that should be discarded, but one certainly shouldn't flip to the other extreme -- a phlegmatic, stodgy hypocritical adult. The message of Catcher in the Rye is not to ridicule both ends of the spectrum. Rather, hypocritical, stodgy elements of adulthood should be harshly criticized and abandoned, and the general milieu of Holden should be embraced, but after dissecting out the intimacy vs. isolation problem and completely discarding notions of irrational fear, angst, and boredom
We must hold fast to the originality, the creativity, and the reality of our childhood throughout adulthood or the plunge down the slippery slope of hypocrisy and superficiality is inevitable. The contradictions lie in how "sex" is an adult (unless you're a member of the twisted Children of God cult), usually an adult concept and act, is a fascination to Holden. Obviously, lying is a form of phoniness, so the them is not resistance to adulthood, nor preservation of childhood, but cultivation of the childhood voice throughout life. Youth, to Holden, is thriving in the honest, curiosity of the great field of rye. Holden's goal -- to avoid the death plunge over the cliff into adulthood -- is right on, but his method should infuse love instead of cynicism. Holden, like myself and a few other inspirationalists out there, devote our time to guarding the death-cliff from the lucid field of rye.
The "safety cameras" put up all around Chicago, combined with the city's feeling of bleakness at times, totally reminds me of Orwellian Big Brother. LA doesn't have any of that; it's rich, from the source, and just pervasively safe, infused with great colors and energy.
Interesting that the number one factor in banning a book (atleast in the 90s decade) is sexual explicitness. 1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material; 1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; and 1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group” (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#mfcb). This is the ALA's Top Ten List of Banned books:
* “It's Perfectly Normal” for homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group;
* “Forever” by Judy Blume for sexual content and offensive language;
* “The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger for sexual content, offensive language and being unsuited to age group;
* “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier for sexual content and offensive language;
* “Whale Talk” by Chris Crutcher for racism and offensive language;
* “Detour for Emmy” by Marilyn Reynolds for sexual content;
* “What My Mother Doesn't Know” by Sonya Sones for sexual content and being unsuited to age group;
* Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey for anti-family content, being unsuited to age group and violence;
* “Crazy Lady!” by Jane Leslie Conly for offensive language; and
* “It's So Amazing! A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families” by Robie H. Harris for sex education and sexual content.
I can see where people are coming from; you shouldn't plug a readership into unsuitable age material.
While Holden Caulfield operates as the main character in the bildungsroman (a novel about spiritual growth), it's ironic that he resists maturity, condemning adulthood for its phoniness, superficiality, and hypocrisy. Additionally, this is the ultimate novel to witness the Eriksonian stage of growth "Isolation vs. Intimacy" as Holden is drawn to Sally Hayes, but then pushes her away out of need for isolation. After being the ultimate Holden Caulfield, I understand this book and can attest that there is some veracity in his claims.
Yet there is a rich dichotomy to be divulged regarding the Holden Caulfield to "Phlegmatic adult" spectrum -- neither extreme is desirable. Seizing and connecting with the childhood curiosity and honesty is incommensurately important, but Holden's discrepancies -- over-adherence to isolation and loneliness and reluctance and sexual immaturity -- to that should be discarded, but one certainly shouldn't flip to the other extreme -- a phlegmatic, stodgy hypocritical adult. The message of Catcher in the Rye is not to ridicule both ends of the spectrum. Rather, hypocritical, stodgy elements of adulthood should be harshly criticized and abandoned, and the general milieu of Holden should be embraced, but after dissecting out the intimacy vs. isolation problem and completely discarding notions of irrational fear, angst, and boredom
We must hold fast to the originality, the creativity, and the reality of our childhood throughout adulthood or the plunge down the slippery slope of hypocrisy and superficiality is inevitable. The contradictions lie in how "sex" is an adult (unless you're a member of the twisted Children of God cult), usually an adult concept and act, is a fascination to Holden. Obviously, lying is a form of phoniness, so the them is not resistance to adulthood, nor preservation of childhood, but cultivation of the childhood voice throughout life. Youth, to Holden, is thriving in the honest, curiosity of the great field of rye. Holden's goal -- to avoid the death plunge over the cliff into adulthood -- is right on, but his method should infuse love instead of cynicism. Holden, like myself and a few other inspirationalists out there, devote our time to guarding the death-cliff from the lucid field of rye.
The "safety cameras" put up all around Chicago, combined with the city's feeling of bleakness at times, totally reminds me of Orwellian Big Brother. LA doesn't have any of that; it's rich, from the source, and just pervasively safe, infused with great colors and energy.
Interesting that the number one factor in banning a book (atleast in the 90s decade) is sexual explicitness. 1,607 were challenges to “sexually explicit” material; 1,427 to material considered to use “offensive language”; and 1,256 to material considered “unsuited to age group” (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#mfcb). This is the ALA's Top Ten List of Banned books:
* “It's Perfectly Normal” for homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion and being unsuited to age group;
* “Forever” by Judy Blume for sexual content and offensive language;
* “The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger for sexual content, offensive language and being unsuited to age group;
* “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier for sexual content and offensive language;
* “Whale Talk” by Chris Crutcher for racism and offensive language;
* “Detour for Emmy” by Marilyn Reynolds for sexual content;
* “What My Mother Doesn't Know” by Sonya Sones for sexual content and being unsuited to age group;
* Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey for anti-family content, being unsuited to age group and violence;
* “Crazy Lady!” by Jane Leslie Conly for offensive language; and
* “It's So Amazing! A Book about Eggs, Sperm, Birth, Babies, and Families” by Robie H. Harris for sex education and sexual content.
I can see where people are coming from; you shouldn't plug a readership into unsuitable age material.
7.23.2006
Eliminate the Five Masks to Fully Experience Our Five Faces
Everyone wears 5 masks:
These five masks protect one from false vulnerability, creating an illusion of spuriousness, but deleteriously conceal our five faces. The masks great a game -- fantastic, alert, and drawing from multiple intellects for people interaction.
Everyone has 5 faces:
- The Psychological -- Labeling, maladaptive diagnosing
- The Computational -- Looping, repetition, mindless tasks
- The Political -- Prohibiting, barring
- The Dramatic -- Disuading emotions
- The Literary -- Mental illusions, ennui
These five masks protect one from false vulnerability, creating an illusion of spuriousness, but deleteriously conceal our five faces. The masks great a game -- fantastic, alert, and drawing from multiple intellects for people interaction.
Everyone has 5 faces:
- Nature -- Ocean, Flowers' mathematical precision of Fibonacci, wavelengths, frequency
- Sex -- Passion, Excitement, Affection, Joy, Happiness
- Music -- Precision, Math, The Number One Connection
- Humanity -- Spirituality, People Relationships, Profession, Work, Intimacy
- Body -- Stretching, Yoga, health, exercise, Zen focus, nutrition
7.15.2006
Here's What I've experimented with -- de-activating the brain. A girlfriend I had said some things that convinced me that I would feel more liberated, less inhibited, if I let my emotions direct my life. The theory was that you would react based on what you were really feeling instead of "over-thinking" something. Interesting theory, but after years of experimentation -- completely false. You need to have your brain engaged for the best sex, to make a professional living, to run marathons, to bike a Tour de France, to buy and drive a cool car, to navigate and map out an entertainment plan, to be a great, fantastic host, to have an amazing travel itinerary, to lead a brilliant and amazing life! This lead to the Charter...
5 Tenets of the Validity Charter
1. Karmic Equilibrium of Generosity
After personal fundamental needs for fulfillment are accomplished and MET, channel 90% of mental, emotional, and your spiritual energy SET of intention toward dissolving BARRIERS in and fulfilling the lives of other inhibition-CARRIERS to generate karmic equilibrium of reciprocating happiness generosity. This nourishes the factual principle of "if you help a person overcome the illusion of inadequacy or understand a belief that releases incredible happiness, someone will -- via reciprocal KINDNESS --do the same for you, curing your BLINDNESS".
2. Mind Engagement
Understand and fully live WITH the mind engaged, not disengaged or de-activated, knowing and understANDING that with the mind engaged
3. Honor and Validate Attractions and Repulsions
To cease struggle, to STOP generating predicaments in which you must DROP the disaggreable environment, by honoring and validating attractions and repulsions; to acknowledge a place of distaste is a natural and an aligned reaction (example, Distaste and loathe Colorado Springs, Chicago, and SB), and it's fantastic to love and fully wholistically resonate with other plACES (Los Angeles and Costa Rica), revealing your colorful, many FACES, causing a validated existence by living and loving according to those attractions and repulsions.
Example
Understand and Live the notion that "money is a means, not an ends". People very close to me -- a parent, friend, or HONEY -- have ruined their lives becoming obsessed with MONEY. This is like being obsessed with the vine groves and not the wine, or the road signs and not the journey or destination. Don't be a FOOL; money is a VERY small, albeit at times necessary, TOOL, but nevertheless, simply a TOOL, believing anything else is for a FOOL. Money is not a reward or a goal, but a tool! Keep that FEAR and you'll feel less financial FEAR; you'll have synergistic confidence without having to look in the MIRROR.
5. Believer of your own Faith
To believe and understand that you are not a christian -- but a buddhist, hindu, muslim, christian, jew to a very small extent, but are primarily a Scientologist, but definitively and intrinsically you are a believer of your own faith. From this:
your life experience becomes infused with joyful serendipity of faces -- a sea of FACES, no DISGRACES -- of your best friends you've met and made in life. Your LIFE becomes a concentrated experience of only the best -- no STRIFE -- the best influences, the most fun, the cermoniously or improvisationally most alive people you've experienced in life. The subjective experience does generate the realITY, you'll SEE.
Extra:
Soaking Up Women
(Note: Do not Misinterpret this as permission to objectify women or any human void of emotional reactions. Humans are objects full of inner workings, functionings, specifics, and distinct, individually-defined certainties. Also, women who demand men to "pay for their wants and needs" are an unfortunate phenomena for healthy relationships, but worse, cripple and dehumanize women in general.)
You not only want to, but NEED to share your comprehensive, LONG journals with a person you trust (preferably a beautiful woman). Women are a sunset or an ocean wave or the Notre Dame, or a miraculous rock formation -- they are not visual eye-candy or pornography, but entities that should and must be not made holy, but almost sanctified and certainly cherished for their beauty.
For a long period of my life, sex, women, and physical attraction was an erroneous zone, a negatively violent and aggressive outlet; a maladaptive mechanism for dealing with pain and problems. It's not only fulfilling, evolving out of that, but magically centering to see not pleasure depots, but the beauty of women. Women have an intelligence and emotional comprehension, that is unique to men; similarly, men have a grace and understanding and intelligence that is unique to a woman. With savviness, and the right timing and amounts of initiative and patience, men and women are sincerely evolved together.
5 Tenets of the Validity Charter
After personal fundamental needs for fulfillment are accomplished and MET, channel 90% of mental, emotional, and your spiritual energy SET of intention toward dissolving BARRIERS in and fulfilling the lives of other inhibition-CARRIERS to generate karmic equilibrium of reciprocating happiness generosity. This nourishes the factual principle of "if you help a person overcome the illusion of inadequacy or understand a belief that releases incredible happiness, someone will -- via reciprocal KINDNESS --do the same for you, curing your BLINDNESS".
2. Mind Engagement
Understand and fully live WITH the mind engaged, not disengaged or de-activated, knowing and understANDING that with the mind engaged
- nothing is too demANDING;
- things exertions become RISING and GALVANIZING;
- from close people or societal advertising, you are invincible to brainwashing conTROL;
- healthy living and eating occurs naturally and intrinsically, with momentous ROLL that's not DROLL, but sensually alive;
- sensual pleasures are experienced most fully, to the HILT without GUILT;
- talents are synchronized, synchronized, epitomized, and fully engAGED, never enrAGED, always stAGED for motivational joy;
- living with mental disengagement reveals the poignancy of mental commitment and engagement;
- improvisational and harmonious thriving with wholistic commitment and graceful clarity occurs naturally because you will navigate before immersing yourself -- Do I want to answer that phone call, that email, do I want to go to that place -- and if NO, to NOT do it! This is not disengaging, it is more fully engaging because you choose whether or not you want to immerse yourself in a phone call, email, appointment or environment, enabling you to improvisationally and harmoniously thrive in places you enjoy to connect with and avoid places you dislike, which only result in a bleak, disjointed existance(you'll want to commit to things you like and do it wholistically with grace and improvisational clarity, and you won't be present and won't be clear in a place that you don't want to be in, so engage the mind and only connect with environments you want to be in).
3. Honor and Validate Attractions and Repulsions
To cease struggle, to STOP generating predicaments in which you must DROP the disaggreable environment, by honoring and validating attractions and repulsions; to acknowledge a place of distaste is a natural and an aligned reaction (example, Distaste and loathe Colorado Springs, Chicago, and SB), and it's fantastic to love and fully wholistically resonate with other plACES (Los Angeles and Costa Rica), revealing your colorful, many FACES, causing a validated existence by living and loving according to those attractions and repulsions.
Example
- It's fantastic to say that you are no longer "from Chicago". You are not exactly "from L.A." yet, but are proud and invigorated to SAY that you are no longer "from Chicago" in the present (I have a small amount of roots there, but I took those with me)!
- To be in places where you sweat, feel clear in body, mind, and physiology (Like how you felt in Mexico, Costa Rica, and Los Angeles).
Understand and Live the notion that "money is a means, not an ends". People very close to me -- a parent, friend, or HONEY -- have ruined their lives becoming obsessed with MONEY. This is like being obsessed with the vine groves and not the wine, or the road signs and not the journey or destination. Don't be a FOOL; money is a VERY small, albeit at times necessary, TOOL, but nevertheless, simply a TOOL, believing anything else is for a FOOL. Money is not a reward or a goal, but a tool! Keep that FEAR and you'll feel less financial FEAR; you'll have synergistic confidence without having to look in the MIRROR.
5. Believer of your own Faith
To believe and understand that you are not a christian -- but a buddhist, hindu, muslim, christian, jew to a very small extent, but are primarily a Scientologist, but definitively and intrinsically you are a believer of your own faith. From this:
your life experience becomes infused with joyful serendipity of faces -- a sea of FACES, no DISGRACES -- of your best friends you've met and made in life. Your LIFE becomes a concentrated experience of only the best -- no STRIFE -- the best influences, the most fun, the cermoniously or improvisationally most alive people you've experienced in life. The subjective experience does generate the realITY, you'll SEE.
Extra:
Soaking Up Women
(Note: Do not Misinterpret this as permission to objectify women or any human void of emotional reactions. Humans are objects full of inner workings, functionings, specifics, and distinct, individually-defined certainties. Also, women who demand men to "pay for their wants and needs" are an unfortunate phenomena for healthy relationships, but worse, cripple and dehumanize women in general.)
You not only want to, but NEED to share your comprehensive, LONG journals with a person you trust (preferably a beautiful woman). Women are a sunset or an ocean wave or the Notre Dame, or a miraculous rock formation -- they are not visual eye-candy or pornography, but entities that should and must be not made holy, but almost sanctified and certainly cherished for their beauty.
For a long period of my life, sex, women, and physical attraction was an erroneous zone, a negatively violent and aggressive outlet; a maladaptive mechanism for dealing with pain and problems. It's not only fulfilling, evolving out of that, but magically centering to see not pleasure depots, but the beauty of women. Women have an intelligence and emotional comprehension, that is unique to men; similarly, men have a grace and understanding and intelligence that is unique to a woman. With savviness, and the right timing and amounts of initiative and patience, men and women are sincerely evolved together.
7.06.2006
Excited Breath and Friendly Foe
Dan Millman writes, "The only difference between fear and excitement is whether you're breathing" (138). This distinction is such a fine line because the energy levels of alertness combined with flight/fight operate on such a hair-pin trigger. Doing some deep breathing, literally, restores confidence in your discovery of exhilaration and the renounciation of fear.
Millman, in his brilliance also writes, "The only safe and sure way to destroy your enemies is to make them your friends" (139). This is brilliant! Way of the peaceful warrior. This is not saying, you say, "I don't have a weed problem, I just consider weeds plants". Instead, this is transforming the ire, or it's utilizing the rancor or distaste for someone and developing that inimical relationship into one of, at the least, comraderie and at best, sincere rapport.
Millman, in his brilliance also writes, "The only safe and sure way to destroy your enemies is to make them your friends" (139). This is brilliant! Way of the peaceful warrior. This is not saying, you say, "I don't have a weed problem, I just consider weeds plants". Instead, this is transforming the ire, or it's utilizing the rancor or distaste for someone and developing that inimical relationship into one of, at the least, comraderie and at best, sincere rapport.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Mailing List
