by Frederick Mann -- 10/1/07 (under construction; first version should be completed in about 2-3 months.)
(Note on word usage: Some political words, like "government," "state," "country," "nation," "law," etc., may not represent reality very well (they are often used to mislead) -- see Political Fakery? and the "Concept Formation" and "Does the government really exist?" videos. However, it would be difficult to communicate without using such words, so I'm using "government*," "state*," "country*," "nation*" and "law*." The "*" is the equivalent of crossing my fingers, to indicate that I may be using a "fake word.")
"A psychological reversal exists when a person claims he desires to achieve a specific goal but his actions and major motivation, and especially his results, are contrary to his stated goal. Superficially or outwardly he appears to be striving to achieve (in the area of his behavior where he is reversed), but he will inevitably, grossly or subtly, sabotage his own every effort. [emphasis added]" -- Dr. Roger J. Callahan
[This column reproduced from Daniel M. Wegner's website. Emphases added. The links in this column can be used to download PDF files with details of the research.]
How do people control their own minds? The simple strategy of directing attention can often be helpful, as people can stop thoughts, concentrate, improve their moods, relax, fall asleep, and otherwise control their mental states just by trying to direct their thoughts. These strategies of mental control can sometimes backfire, however, producing not only the failure of control but the very mental states we are trying to avoid. The theory of ironic processes of mental control (Wegner, 1994) holds that any intentional control of the mind introduces an operating process that directs conscious attention--focusing our minds on positive thoughts, for example, if we are hoping to improve our mood. This process is accompanied, however, by an ironic monitoring process that looks for the failure of our intention. Such monitoring can, when we are stressed or under mental load, actually promote the unwanted mental state--for example, making us sad when we want to be happy. Ironic processes were first discovered in the study of thought suppression, where unwanted thoughts can return merely because we try not to think about them. But ironic processes seem to underly a variety of unwanted mental states, from obsession and depression to anxiety and insomnia, and can produce unwanted actions in sports and performance settings as well.
According to Aristotle, the classic Greek tragedies tell stories of good people whose nature contains the seed of their own undoing. The research that my colleagues, students, and I have been conducting on mental control reveals the outline of just such a seed in the psychological processes that operate when people try to control their own minds. This seed is not quite tragic, as it does not always lead to wholesale undoing. However, it is certainly ironic -- and we have been using the term "ironic process" to describe it.
The Irony of Not Thinking
The possibility that there might be an ironic process in mental control is easy to grasp in the case of thought suppression. A person who is asked to stop thinking about a white bear, for example, will typically think about it repeatedly as a result. In the first studies of this phenomenon (conducted with David Schneider, Sam Carter, and Teri White), we used stream-of-consciousness reports during suppression to measure this recurrence, but this suppression-induced preoccupation has now been found with less conspicuous methods. People who are trying not to think of an emotional thought such as sex, for example, show an increase in electrodermal response-as much as they do when they are specifically trying to focus on that thought. Under some conditions, suppression yields even more intense levels of preoccupation with a thought than does concentration.
People trying not to think about a target thought show such hyperaccessibility -- the tendency for the thought to come to mind more readily even than a thought that is the focus of intentional concentration--when they are put under an additional mental load or stress. In several studies using the Stroop color-word paradigm (conducted with Ralph Erber and Sophia Zanakos), for example, we have found that trying not to think about a target word under conditions of mental load makes people unusually slow at identifying the color in which the word is presented. The word jumps into mind before the color and interferes with naming it. By this measure, unwanted thoughts are found to be more accessible than other comparison thoughts. And the ironic effect announces itself with a reversal of this finding under load for concentration: On average, any thought at all is more accessible than the concentration target.
Both of these observations can be explained by an ironic automatic process in the mind. The attempt to suppress a thought seems to conjure up an ironic psychological process that then works against the very intention that set it in motion. The suppressed thought is brought to mind in sporadic intrusions because of this sensitivity. The attempt to concentrate on a thought, in turn, seems to introduce an ironic psychological process that works against the intention to concentrate, and that therefore enhances the accessibility of everything other than the concentration target.
Why might such ironic processes occur? One way of accounting for these findings is to suggest that ironic processes are part of the machinery of mental control. It may be that in any attempt to control our minds, two processes are instituted -- an operating process that works quite consciously and effortfully to carry out our desire, and an ironic process that works unconsciously and less effortfully to check on whether the operating process is failing and needs renewal.
In the case of thought suppression, for instance, the operating process involves the conscious and labored search for distracters -- as we try to fasten our minds on anything other than the unwanted thought-whereas the ironic process is an automatic search for the unwanted thought itself. The ironic process is a monitor of sorts, a checker that determines whether the operating process is needed, but that also has a tendency to influence the accessibility of conscious mental contents. It ironically enhances the sensitivity of the mind to the very thought that is being suppressed.
Varieties of Irony
An ironic process theory can explain far more than the paradox of thought suppression -- indeed, something like this might vex most everything we try to do with our minds. If the ironic process is inherent in the control system whereby we secure whatever mental control we do enjoy, then it ought to be evident across many domains in which we do have some success in controlling our minds. However, because the operating process requires conscious effort and mental resources, it can be undermined by distraction and evidence of ironic processes will then arise. When people undertake to control their minds while they are burdened by mental loads -- such as distracters, stress, or time pressure -- the result should often be the opposite of what they intend.
Studies in our laboratory have uncovered evidence of ironic effects in several domains. Ironic mood effects occur, for example, when people attempt to control their moods while they are under mental load. Individuals following instructions to try to make themselves happy become sad, whereas those trying to make themselves sad actually experience buoyed mood. Ironic effects also surface in the self-control of anxiety. People trying to relax under load show psychophysiological indications of anxiousness, whereas those not trying to relax show fewer such indications. And ironic effects also occur in the control of sleep. People who are encouraged to "fall asleep as quickly as you can" as they listen to raucous, distracting music stay awake longer than those who are not given such encouragement. Ironic effects also accrue in the control of movement, arising when people try to keep a handheld pendulum from moving in a certain direction, or when they try to keep from overshooting a golf putt. In both cases, an imposition of mental load makes individuals more likely to commit exactly the unwanted action.
Research in other laboratories has revealed further ironic effects. Studies by Neil Macrae, Galen Bodenhausen, Alan Milne, and their colleagues, for instance, have established several remarkable ironic effects in the mental control of stereotyping and prejudice. People who are trying not to stereotype a skinhead as they form an impression of him, for example, show greater stereotyping under mental load. Individuals in this circumstance have been found to avoid even sitting near the skinhead as well. And people under mental load who are specifically trying to forget the stereotypical characteristics of a person (in a directed forgetting study) have been found more likely to recall those characteristics than are people without such load.
Ironic effects observed in yet other laboratories lend further credence to the basic idea. In work by Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon, Jamie Arndt and their colleagues, for example, distraction tasks imposed after people have been asked to reflect for a while on their own death have revealed high levels of accessibility of death-related thoughts. This series of experiments suggests that people who are prompted to think about death turn shortly thereafter to the strategy of suppressing such thoughts even without instruction to do so-and thus suffer ironic returns of the thought. Related findings reported by Leonard Newman, Kimberly Duff, and Roy Baumeister indicate that people under mental load who are forming impressions of a person will project a personality trait onto the target when they are suppressing thoughts of the trait-whether in response to suppression instructions, or spontaneously because they dislike the trait in themselves.
Cultivating the Seed
These studies illustrate how it is that we can, on occasion, cultivate the seed of our own undoing. To begin with, we apparently need good intentions. Like Aristotle's tragic hero, the individual attempting mental control often does so for good cause -- in hopes of achieving high performance, moral ends, or at least mental peace. People often begin on the path toward ironic effects when they try to exercise good intentions -- to behave effectively, to avoid prejudice, to be happy, to relax, to avoid negative thoughts or thoughts of personal shortcomings, or even just to sleep. The simple adoption of a goal is no sin, but this turns out to be the first step toward ironic effects.
The next step in cultivating the seed, as illustrated in this research, is the pursuit of such noble goals in the face of a shortage of mental resources. When there is insufficient time and thought available to achieve the chosen intention, people do not merely fail to produce the mental control they desire. Rather, the ironic process goes beyond "no change" to produce an actual reversal. The opposite happens. These studies indicate, in sum, that ironic effects are precipitated when we try to do more than we can with our minds. Why would we do such a thing? At the extreme, we do this when we are desperate: We will try to achieve a particular sort of mental control even though we are mentally exhausted.
These straits are, of course, highly reminiscent of the circumstances of many people suffering from various forms of psychological disorder. It makes sense that people who are anxious, depressed, traumatized, obsessed, or those with disorders of sleep, eating, movement, or the like, might frequently try to overcome their symptoms-and might also be inclined to attempt such control even under adverse conditions of stress or distraction. Evidence from correlational studies conducted in my laboratory and elsewhere suggests a possible role for ironic processes in several such forms of psychopathology. We know from such correlations that attempts to avoid unwanted symptoms are often highly associated with those symptoms. The most obvious explanation of these associations is that people who experience unwanted mental states attempt to control them. But the more subtle and important possibility, as yet untested in large-scale studies, is that the attempt to control unwanted mental states plays a role in perpetuating them. The experiments showing that mental control attempts can yield laboratory analogs of unwanted mental states provide one basis for this conclusion.
Another line of evidence suggesting a role for ironic processes in the etiology of some disorders comes from studies of what happens when mental control is rescinded. The best examples of such work are the series of experiments by James Pennebaker and colleagues. When people in these studies are encouraged to express their deepest thoughts and feelings in writing, they experience subsequent improvements in psychological and physical health. Expressing oneself in this way involves relinquishing the pursuit of mental control, and so eliminates a key requirement for the production of ironic effects. After all, as suggested in other studies conducted in my lab with Julie Lane and Laura Smart, the motive to keep one's thoughts and personal characteristics secret is strongly linked with mental control. Disclosing these things to others, or even in writing to oneself, is the first step toward abandoning what may be an overweening and futile quest to control one's own thoughts and emotions.
When we relax the desire for the control of our minds, the seeds of our undoing may remain uncultivated, perhaps then to dry up and blow away.
From Psychological Science Agenda, January/February, 1999, 10-11.
There's a "Special Technique to Give up the Need to Control" that's most Effective! Check out the Three Minute Power Pause."
"Three steps? It only takes three steps to solve problems, create wealth and feel happy? I didn't believe it either, until I tried it. Not only do the three steps work, but you can do them anywhere, anytime, for any situation -- and in about three minutes! On top of that, this method never fails. I'm blown away. This is worth billions of dollars." -- Dr. Joe Vitale, International bestselling author of The Attractor Factor, The Greatest Money Making Secret in History! and creator of the audio set, Outrageous Marketing (Nightingale-Conant)
The First Big Inversion
(Click Here to Go Directly to the Three Remedies for Psychological Reversal.)
What I call the "First Big Inversion" is based on:
The First Big Inversion manifests as people using their minds more to harm themselves than to help themselves (self-sabotage). Sometimes victims of the First Big Inversion seem to have "turned their understanding of cause and effect upside-down" -- they often take actions that produce results opposite to what would benefit them. (I often see an insulting email or post in a discussion forum from someone not paid on time. Then I think to myself, "If the author had tried to deliberately design a message that very likely could result in him never getting paid, he couldn't have done it better!" The email from "PWS" (right column) is an example of this phenomenon.) Denial is almost certainly an important aspect of the First Big Inversion. The First Big Inversion is a most important part of the helplessness context.
The book Addicted to Unhappiness: Free yourself from moods and behaviors that undermine relationships, work, and the life you want by Martha Heineman Pieper, PhD and William J. Pieper, MD provides some important clues for understanding self-defeating behavior. You may want to check out the reviews of Addicted to Unhappiness on Amazon.com.
The Piepers discovered that infants regard their parents as "perfect parents." Infants also have an inborn desire to seek pleasure, satisfaction, and happiness. (I call this "THE POSITIVE.") On occasion, the actions or non-actions of parents result in infants experiencing pain (physical or emotional), discomfort, or unhappiness. (I call this "THE NEGATIVE."). Infants "assume" that THE NEGATIVE is what their "perfect parents" want from them. They confuse THE NEGATIVE and THE POSITIVE. Their inborn desire to seek THE POSITIVE gets inverted or turned upside down and they begin to seek THE NEGATIVE in certain situations. Some become addicted to THE NEGATIVE. hence the title "Addicted to Unhappiness."
Infants and children who didn't have their needs for THE POSITIVE properly met, tend to become addicted to THE NEGATIVE, which includes low-level moods as per the Mood-Level Table. In later life, for no rational reasons, they unknowingly and unnecessarily cause themselves to experience THE NEGATIVE, including low-level moods and self-destructive behavior.
For more details of "Addicted to Unhappiness," Click Here!
Dr. Roger J. Callahan discovered "Psychological Reversal" when he tried to find the source of why some of his clients were not making any progress. During 1995, I wrote two articles on the subject:
FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL REVERSAL TO PSYCHOLOGICAL ALIGNMENT. According to Dr. Callahan:
"A psychological reversal exists when a person claims he desires to achieve a specific goal but his actions and major motivation, and especially his results, are contrary to his stated goal. Superficially or outwardly he appears to be striving to achieve (in the area of his behavior where he is reversed), but he will inevitably, grossly or subtly, sabotage his own every effort. [emphasis added] ...From a motivational standpoint, psychological reversal is a perversion of how one's system ought to work. [emphasis added] Psychologically, reversal appears to originate when aspirations are constantly thwarted, or when an individual develops a strong sub-conscious tendency to denigrate himself and expect failure. My observations suggest that physical stress may also generate psychological reversal in an individual with a proclivity in that direction. However, whatever the origin of the condition, its effects are definite -- and devastating."
ADVANCED PSYCHOLOGICAL ALIGNMENT. Includes some important information on self-hatred and other forms of negativity that may be related to psychological reversal.
On recently checking out articles on the Callahan website, I discovered that psychological reversal may be much more important than I had thought. Apparently, various parts of the human body manifests "electromagnetic polarity" that can be measured with a sensitive voltmeter. Sometimes polarity is reversed in parts of the body. There seems to be a high correlation between reversed polarity and cancer. Here are some relevant articles:
Timothy Leary - How to Operate Your Brain
Afformations by Noah St. John
Robin H-C: Positive Self Talk - www.robinhc.com
Amazing Healing Aid - by Gary Craig EFT Founder
EFT Background - Gary Craig
EFT Step I - The Setup
EFT Step II - Tapping Points
EFT III - 9 Gamut Procedure
Try the EFT Shortcut Process
Emotional Freedom Techniques - EFT - Learn in 5 minutes!
Depression EFT Basic Tutorial
Bill O'Reilly may have a "fixed identity" that could appropriately be called "SHUT UP!" If so, then in certain situations the "fixed identity" will "kick in" and dictate the "SHUT UP!" behavior. Probably the best way to handle this condition is with Idenics.
There are cases where "the negative trumps (or overrides) the positives." Such may apply to the "Beast Voice" in your head. W. Timothy Gallwey calls it "Self 1." Your Self 1 (Beast!) is like a parasite in your head that constantly sabotages you.
"Deep within humans dwell those slumbering powers; powers that would astonish them, that they never dreamed of possessing; forces that would revolutionize their lives if aroused and put into action." -- Orison Marden
"The problem is that most people do not know what they are capable of until forced to survive in extreme conditions." -- Al Siebert, Ph.D. (The Survivor Personality: Why Some People Are Stronger, Smarter, and More Skillful at Handling Life's Difficulties... and How You Can Be, Too)
"It seems clear that the breakthroughs of the next age must come in the form of advances in our individual and collective abilities to tap existing human capabilities and to overcome the negative internal forces that interfere with their expression." -- W. Timothy Gallwey (The Inner Game of Golf)
"Humans are the only species on earth with the ability to interfere with their own performance. Self-interference is a learned skill; we are not born with it." -- Michael Hebron (Golf Swing Secrets... and Lies)
In his "Inner Game" books, W. Timothy Gallwey makes a distinction between "Self 1" and "Self 2." Self 1 is an invented or alien self -- It's your "Beast!" Its automatic negative thoughts constitute your "Beast Voice." Self 2 is your natural self.
This is similar to Gurdjieff's distinction between "personality" and "essence."
"Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one's own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die." -- G. I. Gurdjieff (Views from the Real World)
You may have noticed some conversation or chattering going on inside your head. For example, while having a conversation with someone, all kinds of judgmental thoughts go through your mind about what the other person is saying. While listening, you may also be rehearsing what you're going to say next. This is your Self 1 in action.
In tennis there is a typical "Self 1 downward spiral." You hit a poor backhand into the net. Your Self 1 comments in your head, "That was a terrible shot!" After a few more weak backhands, your Self 1 says, "My backhand is terrible!" Not too long after that, the comment becomes, "I'll never be able to play good tennis!" -- or some similar putdown.
The "Self 1 downward spiral" may not stop there. It might be followed with, "I'm too clumsy to be good at any sport." And even, "I'm a worthless person."
Your Self 1 may also be constantly telling you what to do and what not to do. The essence of Self 1 is that it INTERFERES with the powerful abilities of your natural Self 2.
Gallwey has come up with the formula: Performance = Potential minus Interference.
In any area of your life you can improve your performance by reducing interference from your Self 1.
Your Self 2 is your Powerful Real Self or essence. To wake up your Self 2, you may have to "kill" aspects of your Self 1. By "kill" I mean become aware of and UNLEARN a host of more or less unconscious thinking habits designed to keep your Self 1 in control and suppress your Self 2.
Your Self 2 has powerful, natural learning abilities. Your Self 1 may interfere with your natural learning. Much of "formal education" is styled after Self 1 interference and is more of a hindrance than an aid to natural learning. Most humans have largely lost their natural learning abilities -- a big disadvantage! Fortunately, by reducing Self 1 interference, you can recover your natural learning abilities.
If you're trying to make money on the Internet, you may experience interference from your Self 1 in the form of negative comments circulating in your mind. Your Self 1 may be sabotaging you in other ways -- like steering you into making bad decisions.
In all kinds of activities ranging from sports to ordinary communication and to making money on the Internet, there is an Inner Game and an Outer Game. The Outer Game has to do with hitting the ball. The Inner Game has to do with what goes on in your mind.
By becoming better at the Inner Game, you can greatly improve your Outer Game. If you're not as successful as you would like to be with your Outer Game of making money on the Internet (or anything else), you may want to work on improving your Inner Game.
For several decades, I've done a great deal of work on my personal self-improvement. I've read hundreds of books, attended numerous seminars and workshops, and done several kinds of counseling. In my opinion, Gallwey's Inner Game formulation is one of the most important breakthroughs in understanding and improving human behavior.
Whether or not you're interested in tennis or golf, ALL THREE of the following books are "must reading!" Each contains some important and profound information not included in the others. (It's OK to skip some of the material on technical aspects of tennis and golf.)
Your Self 1 interference may put you at a disadvantage in several areas of your life. Self 1 interference could even cause you huge disadvantages. Gallwey's books include several examples of people dramatically increasing their advantages by becoming aware of and "killing" aspects of their Self 1. Most likely, you'll be able to do the same -- waking up your powerful real self!
Some of the issues covered in Programmed for Mediocrity are related to the First Big Inversion and could even be considered part of it.
The first step is to check out the above information, as well as the information at Programmed for Mediocrity and decide whether any of it includes a factor holding you back. You could also ask someone who knows you reasonably well to look over the information and then provide you with honest feedback. Do they think any of it might be a factor holding you back? If either you or they think there might be some self-sabotage patterns in your life, then some of the material most likely does apply to you. Following are some suggested steps to take:
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Many 2%ers succeed spectacularly well in many ways, without concerning themselves about all the Fakery in the world, and without becoming aware of the Second Big Inversion. A system can be seen as "evil" if it produces bad results. That does not necessarily mean that any people in the system are "bad" or "evil." It's possible for all the people in an "evil" system to be "good" people. The reason for this is that "good" people may suffer from "Selective Blindness" that effectively blinds them to the "evils" of their system.
WARNING: Capture-bonded, domesticated humans with selective blindness (including typical psychologists and psychiatrists) may regard anyone who has recovered from the Second Big Inversion as "insane," a "psychopath," or a "sociopath." In general, the best strategy when interacting with capture-bonded, domesticated, and selectively blind ("normal") humans is to pretend that you're just as capture-bonded, domesticated, and selectively blind as they are!
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind!
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves that we are underlings." -- William Shakespeare
"We didn't choose these beliefs [Mamma's beliefs, Daddy's beliefs, society's beliefs, and religion's beliefs] and we may have rebelled against them, but we were not strong enough to win the rebellion. The result is surrender to the beliefs with our agreement. I call this process the domestication of humans... The domestication is so strong that at a certain point in our life we no longer need anyone to domesticate us... We are so well trained that we are our own domesticator. We are an autodomesticaed animal... Our personal power is dissipated by all the agreements we have created, and the result is that we feel powerless. ...[W]e have many agreements that make us suffer, that make us fail in life." -- Don Miguel Ruiz
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind! See IMPORTANT NOTICE!
The science-fiction book Voyage from Yesteryear by James P. Hogan is about children of human origin who were raised on the planet Chiron by computers and robots -- see Welcome to Chironia!. These children were not taught anything "peculiar or unique to human culture" (mainly religion and politics) -- what Hogan calls "hatreds and prejudices [that humans] were programmed in at an early age."
Identifying all the things Chironian children were not taught, may help you understand the Second Big Inversion, which can be described in terms of three related phenomena: "Capture-Bonding," "Human Domestication," and "Selective Blindness."
For more explanations and further aspects of the Second Big Inversion, check out the following:
|
Subjective Social Reality |
Alcoholics Anonymous is a Cult, Part I |
Alcoholics Anonymous is a Cult, Part II |
(See also 12-Step Programs. For a personal-power-based approach to dealing with addictions, see Do Rational Recovery's® "Addictive Voice Recognition Technique®" Crash Course.)
At an early age, practically all human children undergo what I call the "Second Big Inversion." It's a kind of "snapping of the mind" -- a form of "capture-bonding," also called the "Stockholm syndrome," and involving "human domestication," as well as "selective blindness." It involves subjecting yourself and submitting to "subjective social agreement," particularly in the areas of religion and politics. For many more details, see The Reciprocality Project.
Man, Family and State
The above videos provide good accounts of snapping, calling it "caving in." Cult victims cave in to "cult reality." AA believers cave in to "AA reality." Jim Jones (People's Temple) believers caved in to "Jim-Jones Reality." Moonie believers cave in to "Moonie reality." Scientology believers cave in to "Scientology reality." Government* believers cave in to "Government* reality." Koresh (Branch Davidian, Waco) believers caved in to "Koresh reality." Muslim believers cave in to "Muslim reality." Christians believers cave in to "Christian reality." Jew believers cave in to "Jew reality." Heaven's Gate believers caved in to "Heaven's-Gate reality." Hindu believers cave in to "Hindu reality." Manson Family believers caved in to "Manson-Family reality." Bhuddist believers cave in to "Bhuddist reality." Shinto believers cave in to "Shinto reality." Tamil Tiger believers cave in to "Tamil-Tiger reality." These are (or were) all cults who subject(ed) their victims to capture-bonding, human domestication, and selective blindness. Guess which is the deadliest and most murderous cult of all? -- See DEMOCIDE = MURDER BY GOVERNMENT: "Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government [262,000,000 from 1900 to 1999], if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times." (The 262,000,000 number does not include people killed in wars.)
If you find the prospect of thinking of "government* and its believers" as a cult a difficult challenge, then you may want to watch Stefan Molyneux's "Man, Family and State."
Because of pressure from parents, siblings, peers, teachers, preachers, politicians, and the media, practically all children gradually come to accept "subjective social reality" as valid, because, "It's so because I say it is," "It's true because everybody knows it," etc. Before the Second Big Inversion, children primarily use their physical senses to perceive reality. After the Second Big Inversion, children primarily use "subjective social agreement" to "dysperceive" (or distort) reality in certain areas, particularly religion and politics. Selective blinding comes into play when people "see what they want to to see (what "fits with subjective social agreement") and "don't see what they don't want to to see" (ignore what doesn't "fit").
Much of "subjective social agreement" is incorporated into language. Learning a language and accepting all its words (as used by most people) as valid, is part of the Second Big Inversion -- see #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.
I contend that "normal" people who have experienced the Second Big Inversion -- and have become "socially adjusted" -- have "snapped minds" that reduce their ability to think clearly, particularly in the areas of religion and politics. Understanding snapping is most important -- see Mind Control, Brainwashing, and Snapping.
Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio is an outstanding example of someone who has "snapped out of the Second Big Inversion" -- though he may never have "snapped into it" in the first place! -- and he thinks just about as clearly as possible about religion and politics.
|
Freedomainradio.com - Does the government really exist? |
ZEITGEIST: Religious Education |
Penn & Teller Explain The Bible |
In Carl Rogers on Personal Power, the author quotes from Sigmund Freud's Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego:
"A group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence. It has no critical faculty... Anyone who wishes to produce an effect upon it needs no logical adjustment to his arguments; he must paint in the most forcible colors, he must exaggerate, and he must repeat the same thing again and again... It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness, which it regards merely as a form of weakness... It wants to be ruled and oppressed, and to fear its masters... And finally, groups have never thirsted after truth. They demand illusions, and cannot do without them. They constantly give what is unreal precedence over what is real; they are almost as strongly influenced by what is untrue as by what is true. They have an evident tendency not to distinguish between the two... A group is an obedient herd, which could never live without a master. It has such a thirst for obedience that it submits instinctively to anyone who appoints himself as its master."
What Freud describes here are essentially people whose minds have to some degree snapped as a result of capture-bonding and domestication. During the Second Big Inversion, children's ability to use their physical senses to perceive reality tends to be impaired, and severly damaged (in some cases), particularly in the areas of religion and politics. An important aspect of the Second Big Inversion is that to its victims some of their symbols become more "real" to them than reality itself. Particularly in the areas of religion and politics, they find it difficult to distinguish between symbols in their heads and what exists in reality. Victims of the Second Big Inversion can be regareded as "slaves of subjective social agreement." Denial is an important aspect of the Second Big Inversion. An important consequence of the Second Big Inversion is a reduction of the ability to understand cause and effect. The Second Big Inversion contributes to the helplessness of certain people in some areas of their lives. For victims of the Second Big Inversion, particularly in the areas of religion and politics, "subjective social agreement" tends to trump perception and logic.
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind! See IMPORTANT NOTICE!
|
Psychology: Power Of The Situation |
Psychology & Military Torture -- Part 1 |
Psychology & Military Torture -- Part 2 |
It's most important to understand that people can be changed dramatically by being "placed in a situation." This is demonstrated very well in the "Power Of The Situation" video above.
From "Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War":
"Consider the mysterious behavior of Elizabeth Smart in Salt Lake City in 2003 or that of Patty Hearst when she was abducted in 1974. In both cases the victims ["captees"] bonded to their captors and resisted leaving them. The evolutionary origin of this psychological trait, known as the Stockholm syndrome (or more descriptively as capture-bonding), almost certainly comes from millions of years of evolutionary selection where our ancestors -- usually our female ancestors -- were being violently captured from one tribe by another. Those who had the psychological traits (ultimately gene-based brain mechanisms) to socially reorient after a few days (i.e., bond) to their captors often became our ancestors and passed on the trait. Those who didn't have this trait all too often became breakfast. (Or were just killed.)
Being captured was a relatively common event among our ancestors if their history is anything like the recent history of the few remaining primitive tribes. In some of those tribes (Yanomamö, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of our ancestors were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them. Once you understand the evolutionary origin of this trait and its critical nature in genetic survival and reproduction in the ancestral human environment, related mysterious human psychological traits fall into place. Battered-wife syndrome is an example of activating the capture-bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training, fraternity bonding by hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or bondage/discipline."
From Wikipedia/"Capture-bonding":
"There are strong biological reasons to expect that war and abductions (capture) were typical of human prehistory at least back to the time our ancestors escaped predation (at least to the taming of fire and perhaps as far back as chipped rocks). An extreme selective genetic filter was applied to a significant fraction of each generation. If this is correct, then the psychological traits behind capture-bonding should be expected to be nearly universal."
Some degree of helplessness may be an important psychological trait and even a "survival instinct." Many of our ancestors were captured by rival tribes. The "captees" who submitted (more or less as helpless victims) to their captors and bonded with them, survived. Those who resisted (refusing to submit to their captors) were killed. In short, if you manifested helpless submission, you survived. If you resisted, you were killed.
"Twelve-step programs" may help to illustrate how deeply rooted the psychological trait of helpless surrender is in the brains (and genes) of some people. From Wikipedia/"Twelve-step program":
"These are the original Twelve Steps as defined by Alcoholics Anonymous:
- We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable.
- Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
- Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him."
What's this other than helpless submission/surrender to a "superior power," i.e., capture-bonding? (See AA videos.) According to Steve Salerno in SHAM: How the Self-Help Movement Made America Helpless:
"Perhaps the most striking feature of SHAM's Recovery wing is the mainstream credibility it enjoys despite the dearth of evidence supporting it. The questions start with the progenitor of all Recovery, Alcoholics Anonymous with its 2.2 million members worldwide... Harvard's research indicated that alcoholics who don't try AA have a better chance of kicking the habit than alcoholics who do."
For a personal-power-based approach to dealing with addictions, see Do Rational Recovery's® "Addictive Voice Recognition Technique®" Crash Course.
In the Introduction I indicated that "many people may be relatively blind to helplessness!" I argued that: "Helplessness associated with capture-bonding would "work better" if the captees were not aware of their helplessness. If they were aware of their helplessness, they might do something about it, resist, and then get killed. In this way, being blind to helplessness may also have become a "survival instinct." Add to this the factor of helpless people being helpless about their helplessness."
As a result of the Second Big Inversion it's much easier for so-called "authorities" to mislead, fool, control, dominate, tax, jail, draft or recruit for their wars, hook on prescription drugs, etc. millions of subservient victims. It seems to me that Jack Johnson either never became a victim of the Second Big Inversion, or he was only a "minor victim."
How many people feel they can't live their lives without ann "externally-provided structure" (be it slavery, "coercive government*," organized religion, a job in a hierarchy, etc.)? How many people feel helpless in the absence of such a structure?
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind! See IMPORTANT NOTICE!
|
Freedomainradio.com: Psychology - An Introduction |
Gatto's Independent Study |
J. T. Gatto: State-Controlled Consciousness, 2003 |
J. T. Gatto: Classrooms of the Heart, 1991 |
The Four Agreements
The first chapter of The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz describes aspects of the Second Big Inversion -- he calls it "the domestication of humans":
"Humans are dreaming all the time... The dream of the planet includes all of society's rules, its beliefs, its laws, its religions, its different cultures and ways to be, its governments, schools, social events, and holidays... We are living in a dream of hell... It is as if we live in the middle of a fog that doesn't let us see any further than our own nose." [emphasis added] -- Don Miguel Ruiz
Note that all the items mentioned above by Ruiz are "things" that would not have been taught to Chironian children -- anything "peculiar or unique to human culture" (mainly religion and politics).
"Children are domesticated the same way that we domesticate a dog, a cat, or any other animal. In order to teach a dog we punish the dog and we give it rewards. We train our children whom we love so much the same way we train any domesticated animal: with a system of punishment and reward... [W]e start pretending to be what we are not, just to please others, just to be good enough for someone else... We pretend to be what we are not because we are afraid of being rejected. The fear of being rejected becomes the fear of not being good enough... We become a copy of Mamma's beliefs, Daddy's beliefs, society's beliefs, and religion's belief... All our normal tendcies are lost in the process of domestication." -- Don Miguel Ruiz
|
"SHUT UP!" is a major Parents: Architects of Insanity Teacher: "Stop Talking!" - "Keep Quiet!" |
"In his book The Path of Least Resistance, Robert Fritz cites an experiment in which three- and four-year old children had tape recorders attached to them, recording everything that was told to them: "After analyzing the tapes, researchers discovered that 85 percent of what children were told was about either what they could not do or how bad they were because of what they were doing." In other words, as children, as much as 85% of what we learned from adults consisted of negative programming. Eighty-five percent! With all those negative, self-defeating programs running in our brains, it's no wonder we feel powerless and unfree!" -- Mark Lindsay (Learned Permission-seeking). In his book What to Say When You Talk to Your Self, Shad Helmstetter, Ph.D. writes: "I'll give you an example of some of the negative programming most of us have received. During the first eighteen years of our lives, if we grew up in fairly average, reasonably positive homes, we were told "No!," or what we could not do, more than 148,000 times! If you were a little more fortunate, you may have been told "No!" only 100,000 times... Meanwhile, during the same period, the first eighteen years of your life, how often do you suppose you were told what you can do or what you can accomplish in life? A few thousand times? A few hundred? During my speaking engagements to groups across the xcountryx, I have had people tell me they could not remember being told what they could accomplish in life more than three or four times! ...Everything and everyone around us, without being aware of it, has been programming us... Year after year, word by word, our life scripts were etched." |
"We didn't choose these beliefs [Mamma's beliefs, Daddy's beliefs, society's beliefs, and religion's beliefs] and we may have rebelled against them, but we were not strong enough to win the rebellion. The result is surrender to the beliefs with our agreement. I call this process the domestication of humans... The domestication is so strong that at a certain point in our life we no longer need anyone to domesticate us... We are so well trained that we are our own domesticator. We are an autodomesticaed animal... Our personal power is dissipated by all the agreements we have created, and the result is that we feel powerless. ...[W]e have many agreements that make us suffer, that make us fail in life." -- Don Miguel Ruiz
"The logic behind white domination is to prepare the black man for the subservient role in this xcountryx. Not so long ago this used to be freely said in parliament, even about the educational system of the black people. It is still said even today, although in a much more sophisticated language. To a large extent the evil-doers have succeeded in producing at the output end of their machine a kind of black man who is man only in form. This is the extent to which the process of dehumanization has advanced." -- Steve Biko
Much of the history of South Africa up to 1994 can be described as an attempt by whites to domesticate blacks. Steve Biko can be seen as someone who attempted to bring about a movement to free his fellow blacks from at least certain aspects of the Second Big Inversion. He was the founder of the "Black Consciousness Movement" in South Africa in the 1960s. Biko recognized that the biggest problem was that blacks in their own consciousness regarded themselves as "inferior creatures" -- an aspect of capture-bonding. In terms of the culture in South Africa -- including the languages used -- the notion was planted in the minds of whites that they were "superior beings" ("captors") and in the minds of blacks that they were "inferior creatures" ("captees"). Practically all whites and blacks were subconsciously enculturated in this manner. Biko recognized this phenomenon and advocated that blacks had to free their consciousness from the "inferior-creature" shackles of capture-bonding. Biko essentially refused to be a captee. He became world-famous and was visited by people like Robert Kennedy. Biko was also the greatest threat to "white government*" ("captor") in South Africa. White police effectively murdered him in 1977. ("Captees who resist capture-bonding, and refuse to submit to their captors, must be killed!") The murder was "whitewashed." In 1987, Richard Attenborough directed the movie Cry Freedom, a biographical drama about Biko starring Denzel Washington and Kevin Kline.
Biko saw the struggle to restore black consciousness as having two stages, "psychological liberation" and "physical liberation":
"The first step therefore is to make the black man come to himself; to pump back life into his empty shell; to infuse him with pride and dignity, to remind him of his complicity in the crime of allowing himself to be misused and therefore letting evil reign supreme in the country of his birth." -- Steve Biko
Biko used the term "the conscientization process" to describe what I call "recovery from capture-bonding and domestication."
Biko was aware of how captors used language to capture the minds of their captees. He said: "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." See #TL07A: The Anatomy of Slavespeak.
It seems to me that Jack Johnson spontaneously performed his own "conscientization process" on himself.
You can find considerbly more information relevant to Human Domestication under the Tackle the Packer Factor.
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind! See IMPORTANT NOTICE!
To what degree are many "modern humans" effectively more or less "helpless captees" of coercive political systems and other "captor-systems?" To what degree do those in positions of "captor-power" depend on the helplessness of their "citizen/subject-captees?" To what extent is it a "survival instinct" for "helpless captees" to blind themselves to their helpless submission to their captors? How else could they worship "megacaptors" like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Mussolini?
According to Andre Bacard in Hunger for Power: Who Rules the World and How:
"It is hard to overstate how deeply many followers conform to their leaders. The passion to obey is every bit as intense as the hunger to command. When Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin died, millions of Russians rushed into the streets and cried. Persons whose families had been sent to Siberian labor camps mourned the mass murderer who fomented their nightmares. These rank-and-file citizens deluded themselves that Stalin was innocent of all wrongdoing, that his orders were misinterpreted by zealous subordinates (like themselves)...
In 1838, according to Jean Paulhan, Barbados island staged a strange revolt. About two hundred slaves had recently been emancipated by the Proclamations of March. These freed citizens begged their former master, Glenelg, to return them to bondage. An Anabaptist minister, the spokesman for the group, read aloud a list of grievances. Glenelg, either because he was scrupulous or because he feared government officials, refused to be swayed. Consequently, the former slaves massacred him and his family. The Russian and Barbados followers could face a known, though terrible, leader easier than they could confront an unknown, leaderless life."
"When Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin died, millions of Russians rushed into the streets and cried. Persons whose families had been sent to Siberian labor camps mourned the mass murderer who fomented their nightmares." What do you make of this? "I calculate that Stalin murdered about 43,000,000 citizens and foreigners" -- R.J. Rummel -- see also DEMOCIDE = MURDER BY GOVERNMENT: "Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government [262,000,000 from 1900 to 1999], if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century."
Consider the possibility that the capture-bonding phemomenon is so powerful that its victims can blind themselves to the most horrible atrocities.
|
Freedomainradio.com - Muslims are not your enemy... |
Freedomainradio.com - Who, then, is your enemy? |
Doug Casey: Who's the Enemy? |
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Mao Tse-Tung
Is R.J. Rummel a victim of capture-bonding, domestication, and selective blindness? If so, does it affect his ability to think clearly about coercive political systems? Note that in the quote just above the "Muslim videos" I highlighted: "Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century." Rummel doesn't include in his democide number -- 262,000,000 from 1900 to 1999 -- those killed during government* wars. In other words, Rummel doesn't regard the war dead as having been "murdered by government*" -- a "lesser evil" in his mind, perhaps? Or does he regard government* wars as "democratic nonviolence?"
How does "power kill?" Wouldn't it be better to say that people who practice coercive political power tend to kill? See "Why You Must Recognize and Understand Coercion"
"The greatest fallacy in the entire history of the human species is the idea that it is necessary to employ coercion to eliminate disorder." -- Andrew J. Galambos
"Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman." -- Mahatma Gandhi
How aware is Rummel of various forms of violence? Why does he seem to argue that, "Because democracies are less violent than dictatorships, therefore democracies are nonviolent?" If some "democratic government* agent" tells me that I must pay the government* 30% of my earnings, and if I refuse, then government* agents with guns will be sent to capture me, and shoot me if I resist. Does Rummel call this nonviolence? Does he think in terms of what he regards as "mild violence" is "acceptable violence" and therefore is "nonviolence?"
The millions of Russians who cried when Stalin died, blinded themselves to his violence because of capture-bonding, domestication, and selective blindness. Does Rummel in a similar way blind himself to more subtle forms of violence because he's a victim of capture-bonding, domestication, and selective blindness to a lesser extent than the Russians?
Why do millions of people submit helplesslessly to "democratic government* agents" collecting taxes essentially at the point of a gun? "Pay up, or violence will be used against you!" What if millions of people blind themselves to government* violence (or threats of violence) because of capture-bonding, domestication, and selective blindness?
There are libertarians who reject the initiation of violence. To many of them, the initiation of violence is a crime. If it's a crime (robbery) for a "private individual" to point a gun at someone and say, "Gimme your money, or else!" then it's similarly a crime when a "democratic government* agent" says, "Pay up, or violence will be used against you!"
The general theme that for a scale ranging from "total dictatorship" to "full democracy," if you move along the scale toward full democracy, you will tend to find less violence and more peace, seems accurate to me. But maybe Rummel should extend the scale to "total dictatorship" to "full democracy" to "completely libertarian!" However, Rummel seems to use the words "democratic" and "libertarian" as synonyms.
There's a huge divide between what a libertarian (who rejects the initiation of violence) sees as "acceptable violence" (only violence used in self-defense) and what Rummel seems to see as "lesser forms of violence he calls nonviolence!" This huge divide may be because Rummel might be a victim of capture-bonding, domestication, and selective blindness to a greater extent than a libertarian (who rejects the initiation of violence).
To further explore these and related issues, you may want to visit one or more of the following:
|
Timothy Leary - How to Operate Your Brain |
Freedomainradio.com - Politics as addiction... |
Resisting the Drums of War |
WARNING: Do not proceed to read anything further on this page, unless you have a strong mind! See IMPORTANT NOTICE!
If you're interested in becoming a Chironian (free from the Second Big Inversion), you could take the following steps:
"The decision having once been made not to let oneself be imposed on any longer by the extant and palpable, little scruple was felt about revolting against the existing State or overturning the existing laws; but to sin against the idea of the State, not to submit to the idea of law, who would have dared that?" -- Max Stirner
Steve Biko saw the struggle to restore black consciousness as having two stages, "psychological liberation" and "physical liberation":
"The first step therefore is to make the black man come to himself; to pump back life into his empty shell; to infuse him with pride and dignity, to remind him of his complicity in the crime of allowing himself to be misused and therefore letting evil reign supreme in the xcountryx of his birth." -- Steve Biko
Steve Biko thought that "psychological liberation" needed to come first and would make "physical liberation" possible. What do both black and white capture-bonded, domesticated, and selectively blind people have to do to liberate themselves psychologically? For an outstanding example of someone who has liberated himself psychologically -- and who also has recovered largely or completely from the Second Big Inversion (though he may never have been a victim of it!) -- watch the videos of Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: These lessons have been adapted from those provided by "A Course in Miracles."
You may want to read a few of them a day and reflect about them. You could also keep a journal and write down any thoughts the lessons stimulate for you.
LESSON 1: Nothing I See Means Anything.
The reason this is so is that I create all the meaning there can be for me. Up till now, I may have been completely unaware of how and why I have been creating meanings for everything I see.
LESSON 2: In The Form Of Judgments, I Have Given What I See All The Meaning It Has For Me.
I may have judged everything I looked at, which may have clouded my vision. This may have distorted my view of some aspects of reality, because I have added my judgments to the reality available for me to see. I am willing to recognize that some of my judgments may have clouded my vision. If possible, and where appropriate, I would like to see reality more accurately by removing the "judgment lens" through which I've been looking.
LESSON 3: I May Have Misunderstood Some Things I Saw.
How can I understand what I see if my judgments get between me and reality? Is it possible that my judgments and interpretations have prevented me from seeing reality as it really is? Could it be possible that fundamentally reality cannot be understood? In other words, can I conceive the possibility that reality is fundamentally not understandable? Is it possible that I may have used my judgments and interpretations to create the illusion of "understanding?"
LESSON 4: What Is Understanding?
When I say, "I understand...," I can then explain, "It works like this..." Then I make something else "stand under" what I claim to understand. In effect, I make one thing "stand for another." This is a metaphor. But how can one thing "stand for another thing?" Or how can a second thing "stand under" a first thing to enable me to understand the first thing? Is it possible that the best I can do is create the illusion of "understanding?" Is it possible that my "understanding" will sometimes seem to work and at other times may not work?
LESSON 5: My Thoughts Do Not Mean Anything In Themselves.
The thoughts of which I am aware do not mean anything because I create the meaning and add them to my thoughts. Some of what I call "my" thoughts may not even be my real thoughts. Some thoughts may come automatically from ancient parts of my brain. They have no meaning. I do not have to add any meaning to them. Some of these thoughts can be harmful to me and I am willing to "just let them go." I can thank them and let them go. I recognize that my thoughts inherently mean nothing,
and I can let them go. Could this be a better choice than some of the choices I made before?
LESSON 6: I Am Seldom (If Ever) Upset For The Reason I Think.
What if I almost never get upset for the reason I think? What if I really get upset because I make judgments and interpretations? What if I really get upset about my own judgments and interpretations, and then blame it on somebody or something else? Am I constantly trying to justify my thoughts? Am I constantly trying to make them true? Am I using my judgments and interpretations to make people and things my enemies, so I can justify my anger at them and think that my attacks against them are warranted? How much have I been distorting things I saw by falsely assigning to them the role of upsetting me? How often have I done this to defend a thought system that has hurt me? Do I still want such a thought system? Am I willing to let it go?
LESSON 7: Sometimes I Am Upset Because I "See" What Is Not There.
Reality can seem frightening to me (for example, if I'm attacked by a wild animal), but reality may not always be as frightening as I think. Reality simply is. The "frightening" is a meaning I created. It may or may not be appropriate. When I get upset, it is often because I have replaced reality with illusions I made up. The illusions can be upsetting because I have given them
false "reality." Thus I can regard my own illusions as "reality."
LESSON 8: I See Only The Past.
As I look about, I may condemn the world I look upon. I may call this "seeing." I may hold the past against everyone and everything, making them my enemies. When I have forgiven myself and/or accepted myself (as appropriate), I can come closer to seeing the actual reality that exists.
LESSON 9: My Mind Is Preoccupied With Past Thoughts.
I see only my own thoughts, and my mind is preoccupied with the past. What, then, can I see as
it is? Let me remember that I don't have to look on the past to prevent the present from invading my mind. Let me understand that I may be trying to use time against myself or others. Let me learn to give the past away and let it go, realizing that in so doing I am giving up nothing.
LESSON 10: I See Nothing As It Is Now.
If I see nothing as it is now, it can truly be said that I see nothing. I can see only what
is now. The choice is not whether to see the past or the present; the choice is merely whether to see or not. I may have chosen to "see" what wasn't there, costing me my vision. Now I can choose again, so that I may see.
LESSON 11: My Thoughts Do Not Mean Anything.
My thoughts in themselves have no meaning. I can assign whatever meanings I like to my thoughts. I am the creator of these meanings.
LESSON 12: My Meaningless Thoughts Are Showing Me A Meaningless World.
Since the thoughts of which I am aware do not mean anything, the world my thoughts reflect can also cannot have any meaning. Reality is what it is -- meaningless. I can have real thoughts as well as "crazy" thoughts. I can see a real world, if I look to my real thoughts as my guide for seeing.
LESSON 13: I Am Upset Because I See A Meaningless World.
"Crazy" thoughts can be "upsetting" to me. If I get "upset," I'm doing the "upsetting" to myself. Contemplating that the world might be meaningless could be "upsetting." It may be difficult to confront a meaningless world. I may detest a "vacuum of meaning." I may put my own judgments, interpretations, and illusions into the vacuum. Then I may claim that my own judgments, interpretations, and illusions are the "Meaning of the Universe." Realize that doing this might be "crazy."
LESSON 14: A Meaningless World May Engender Fear.
Any fear I experience when contemplating a Meaningless World, is fear I created. Try to answer the question: "What is the meaning of the universe?" If you answer, "The Universe has no Meaning," then you are correct. Whatever other answers you come up will be your own judgments, interpretations, and illusions. I am free to choose whatever thoughts and emotions about the world I like. These thoughts and emotions will be my creations and are unlikely to be relevant to reality.
LESSON 15: My Thoughts Are Images I Have Made.
Whatever I see and what I don't see may reflect my thoughts. I may see the "ugly world," while not seeing the "beautiful world." Or I might see the "beautiful world," while not seeing the "ugly world." In either case, I created both the "ugly" and the "beautiful." They are images in my head. Reality simply is the way it is.
LESSON 16: I Have No Neutral Thoughts.
Neutral thoughts are impossible because all thoughts have power -- positive power or negative power. They will either create a false world in my head, or lead me to the real world. Any false world I see arises from my thinking errors. The real world reveals itself to my eyes as I correctmy thinking errors. My thoughts cannot be neither true nor false. They must be one
or the other. What I see shows me which they are.
LESSON 17: I See No Neutral Things.
What I see reflects what I think. If I did not think I would not exist. Let me look at the world I see as a representation of my own state of mind. I know that my state of mind can change. And so I also know the world I see can change as well.
LESSON 18: I Am Alone In Experiencing The Effects Of My Seeing.
"You are not alone" may be a comforting deception, but does it reflect the real world? Who, but I, can be responsible for the effects of what I see?
LESSON 19: I Am Alone In Experiencing The Effects Of My Thoughts.
"You are not alone" may be a comforting deception, but does it reflect the real world? Who, but I, can be responsible for the effects of what I think?
LESSON 20: I Am Determined To See.
Recognizing that my thoughts are mine only, I am determined to see the real world.
LESSON 21: I Am Determined To See Things Differently.
I am free to see anything any way I like. But I cannot escape the consequences of how I see.
LESSON 22: What I See Can Be A Form Of Vengeance.
It would be only my own attack thoughts that could give rise to such a picture picture.
LESSON 23: I Can Escape From A World Of Vengeance By Giving Up Attack Thoughts.
Without attack thoughts I could not see a world of attack. I can just as well see a world of peace and safety and joy. But does either lead me closer to the real world?
LESSON 24: Sometimes I Do Not Perceive My Own Best Interests.
How can I recognize my own best interests? What I think are my best interests could merely trap me in a world of illusions. I am willing to be responsible for discovering my own best interests. I can do it by myself.
LESSON 25: I May Not Know What Something Is For.
I may be deceiving myself that my illusions about myself are real. Thinking that the world has a purpose is my judgment, or my interpretation, or my illusion. Let me open my mind to a world with no purpose.
LESSON 26: My Attack Thoughts Attack My Own Vulnerability.
What am I doing if I see myself as under constant attack? What if pain, illness, loss, age, and death seem to threaten me? What if all my hopes, and wishes, and plans appear to be at the mercy of a world I cannot control? What can I do... other than "grin and bear it?"
LESSON 27: Above All Else I Want To See Clearly.
Recognizing that what I see reflects what I think, I realize that clear vision is my greatest need. If I see a "negative" world, does this reflect a "negative" self-image I have created? Can I let go such an image of myself?
LESSON 28: Above All Else I Want To See Differently.
The world I see can hold my self-image in place, and guarantee its continuance. Chinese proverb: "He with head up backside sees shitty world!"
LESSON 29: I Can Be The Victim Of The World I See.
How can I be the victim of a world that I can undo if I so choose? Can I loosen my chains? Can I drop them off merely by desiring to do so? Can I open the prison door? Can I leave simply
by walking out? What can hold me in this world? What if my wish to stay keeps me a prisoner? Can I give up my the wishes that have kept me stuck in my prison, and walk out into the sunlight?
LESSON 30: Have I Invented The World I See?
Did I make up a prison in which I see myself? What do I need to recognize to free myself?
LESSON 31: There Is Another Way Of Looking At The World.
Whatever purpose I may have ascribed to the world is not the purpose of the world. So there must be another way of looking at the world. What if I've been seeing things upside down, with my thoughts the opposite of the truth? What if I see the world as a prison, but it's really the place for me to be free?
LESSON 32: My Mind Is My Own.
Can the world I look upon be a reflection of my illusions I keep hidden from myself? How can I flush out the illusions and make my mind truly my own? Do I need any thoughts other than my own?
LESSON 33: I Can Forgive Myself and Others.
Having forgiven myself and others, I no longer have to see myself as guilty. And I can let go of any grudges I may have born against others. I can accept myself as I am, and I can accept others as they are.
LESSON 34: What Can I Achieve?
What is there that I cannot do? What powers might I have? What limitations in my mind can I let go? What illusions might be holding me back? What false ideas might I have about myself? What idols might pollute my mind?
LESSON 35: What Should I Fear?
What makes me afraid? What endagers my life? What loss, or deprivation, or pain need I suffer? What fears can I get rid of?
LESSON 36: What Support And Protection Do I Need?
Who will support and protect me if I do not first support and protect myself?
LESSON 37: What Companionship Do I Need?
Can I live with myself? Can I be sure of myself on my own? What do I really need? What illusions about myself can keep my life unfulfilled? What false "needs" can I let go?
LESSON 38: What Can I Be Responsible For?
How can I be responsible for my health, wealth, and happiness? Is there anything I should blame on others or things outside myself?
LESSON 39: Who Other Than Myself Is The Source And The Creator Of My Life?
My parents gave birth to me. Now I have left my childhood home, I have grown up, and I stand on my own feet. Can I see the real world by myself as I can best see it?
LESSON 40: Who Can Stop Me?
To what extent can others stop me? To what extent can I stop myself? When do I have to allow others to stop me?
LESSON 41: When Others Say Things About Me, What Does It Mean?
What others say mean nothing. Mostly, when other people say "bad" things about me, they're just projecting their own "badness" onto me. I don't have to take anything anybody says personally. It means nothing.
LESSON 42: What Meaning Do These Lessons Have?
These lessons have no meaning. They mean nothing. Whatever meaning you may ascribe to them is your meaning in your head. You create all your meanings. You are responsible for all your meanings.
LESSON 43: What Meaning Does the Universe Have?
The universe has no meaning. Thank the universe for having no meaning; really express your gratitude to the universe. Because, if it had a meaning, it would have been the wrong meaning!
See also #TL50A: Semantic Rigidity, Flexibility, and Freedom.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org - terrorcrat.com - mind-trek.com