The extra overhead of putting together an organization to forward a particular purpose and achieve a goal is not always justified for a short-range goal. Try to keep the resources spent on organization as a small percent of the overall resources spent to achieve a particular goal. Short-range goals = less organization.
Small activities may be “do-it-yourselfers”. In a task involving more than one person all that may be needed is to set up and possibly “smooth out” some flow lines for sub-products and products. This can even be done “on-the-fly”.
Keep your organization lean, but with enough structure and “muscle” to retain its integrity and make progress despite any obstacles the environment has to offer.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Work as A Therapeutic Activity
First, make the assumption that the goal of your therapy is to recover more “you” in the form of more competent self-determination. First realize that the physical universe we live in and react with is built and arranged on the basis of aligned data. The alignment is not only of data of equal value, but also in terms of hierarchies of data from the most basic to the most specific. Now get the idea that once upon a time, and it probably was very long ago, you had a very good understanding of the fundamental data and hierarchies of data that applied to whatever you were working with or communicating with.
So what happened? Well, you most likely did have a lot of good experience in working and getting things done, and what defined it as good was its alignment with fundamental data of the area in which you were working or communicating. However, along the way a lot of mistakes, goofs, unethical activities, even crimes resulted in accumulated aberration that cut across your ability to face up to areas of life and work with them. So there are pools of good experience buried down there under the aberration. You want to tap into these pools. How to do it?
First, make an effort to educate yourself in the fundamental data of the area in which you will be working. It is probably true, especially in the beginning, that what you are thinking of as fundamental may still be quite shallow (or particular) in relation to the “deeper” more fundamental data you would have known before. But all that is OK. Think of it as an archaeological dig. You may be getting good results by regaining contact with a certain level of knowledge and understanding, while still deeper levels lie as yet untouched.
As you are working try to remind yourself of the basic fundamental data that underlies the top layer data of your work. If you have a good work purpose, and you are making progress on it, you can build up a communication with and awareness of the underlying basics if you keep them in mind to some degree. It is not necessary to keep them all in mind, or even any in mind at any given moment. Most people have trouble keeping more than a couple of things in mind at one time. Just pick one of your fundamentals up and hit on it every once in awhile in the course of your work. If enough progress is being made and enough of this “hitting” is being done along the lines of fundamental data known in the present that match or come close to matching fundamentals known and used before, then you will at some point tap into a reservoir of your own good experience. Your reservoir may allow you insights into other aligned data that you had not been aware of as well as greater confidence and certainty on the data you were working with.
A good example of the application of this theory is the previous article in this blog on Tai Chi exercises using the Tai Chi fundamental principles.
So what happened? Well, you most likely did have a lot of good experience in working and getting things done, and what defined it as good was its alignment with fundamental data of the area in which you were working or communicating. However, along the way a lot of mistakes, goofs, unethical activities, even crimes resulted in accumulated aberration that cut across your ability to face up to areas of life and work with them. So there are pools of good experience buried down there under the aberration. You want to tap into these pools. How to do it?
First, make an effort to educate yourself in the fundamental data of the area in which you will be working. It is probably true, especially in the beginning, that what you are thinking of as fundamental may still be quite shallow (or particular) in relation to the “deeper” more fundamental data you would have known before. But all that is OK. Think of it as an archaeological dig. You may be getting good results by regaining contact with a certain level of knowledge and understanding, while still deeper levels lie as yet untouched.
As you are working try to remind yourself of the basic fundamental data that underlies the top layer data of your work. If you have a good work purpose, and you are making progress on it, you can build up a communication with and awareness of the underlying basics if you keep them in mind to some degree. It is not necessary to keep them all in mind, or even any in mind at any given moment. Most people have trouble keeping more than a couple of things in mind at one time. Just pick one of your fundamentals up and hit on it every once in awhile in the course of your work. If enough progress is being made and enough of this “hitting” is being done along the lines of fundamental data known in the present that match or come close to matching fundamentals known and used before, then you will at some point tap into a reservoir of your own good experience. Your reservoir may allow you insights into other aligned data that you had not been aware of as well as greater confidence and certainty on the data you were working with.
A good example of the application of this theory is the previous article in this blog on Tai Chi exercises using the Tai Chi fundamental principles.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
How to Evaluate the Optimum Solution for a Particular Existing Group Scene
First, define what the limits of your existing scene are. It is best to focus on what you can influence or change directly or with the least amount of indirection. Include in this scene a “third dimension” of data ranking or data hierarchy, where more basic or general data underlie less general, more specific data. Think of the data items as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. So, there are functions, activities, production, knowledge, purposes, competency, hats, hat wearers, policy, technology, training, equipment, etc. All of these are pieces of the puzzle. They are aligned in a particular configuration in the existing scene. You just want to look and see what you have, not what you wish to have or think you have, but what you actually DO have in the existing scene.
Next work out what the ideal of this scene would be. Bring to bear any relevant practical philosophical knowledge that you have. You should want to include safety, production, viable exchange of products, freedom for the scene participants to apply self-determined competency, ability to self-correct, and ability to support or back-up higher level s of production through judicious application of resources that increase the degree of organization of the scene.
Now go back to the existing scene and “look” in the direction you would have to go in order to progress towards the ideal scene. If you rearrange the puzzle pieces of the existing into different configurations, which configuration will give you the maximum progress towards the ideal scene? That is your answer. In working this out you may want to use lists or diagrams or representative manipulatable items that can be moved around to represent different possible configurations of resources.
Don’t worry if you don’t get it done perfectly. Close will do, and you have your whole life to practice getting better with it.
Next work out what the ideal of this scene would be. Bring to bear any relevant practical philosophical knowledge that you have. You should want to include safety, production, viable exchange of products, freedom for the scene participants to apply self-determined competency, ability to self-correct, and ability to support or back-up higher level s of production through judicious application of resources that increase the degree of organization of the scene.
Now go back to the existing scene and “look” in the direction you would have to go in order to progress towards the ideal scene. If you rearrange the puzzle pieces of the existing into different configurations, which configuration will give you the maximum progress towards the ideal scene? That is your answer. In working this out you may want to use lists or diagrams or representative manipulatable items that can be moved around to represent different possible configurations of resources.
Don’t worry if you don’t get it done perfectly. Close will do, and you have your whole life to practice getting better with it.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Contra-Life Acts or Sins, Cleanliness and the Ideal Scene
What is a sin? A sin is whatever a Christian authority says it is. That is not a very useful datum for providing guidance to live ethically. It also leaves organized Christianity open to subornation and perversion.
A better guide is "pro-life". This should be inclusive of any legitimate religion, and it puts the responsibility on the individual to apply his self-determination in comparing and aligning data with the pro-life direction. In this way not just the few, but the many exercise their analyzers and take some measure of responsibility for seeing that the overall scene does
not head in the wrong direction.
Whether an action or activity is pro-life is determined with reference to the pro-life direction, which is the direction of movement towards the ideal scene. It is the direction of winning the game of life; winning in the game of "chutes and ladders". The goal is recovery of self, allowing opportunity for generating and building on good life experience and getting back to the better states of life that we as spiritual beings have been in at some time in the past.
The ideal scene I am referring to here really enters in above the level of the personal life. The ideal scene should be capable of including at least all honest people, while the personal life is centered around the individual. The ideal scene is a practical philosophical tool that refers to the here and now. It is not meant as a metaphysical or religious or spiritual intangible. It is meant to be a workable, achievable template that individuals and groups can use to reconcile their
activities beyond their private life against.
How is the ideal scene determined? The ideal scene could be stated in general terms as steady progress and movement in the direction of improved conditions. One way to get more specific is just to list out all the desired components, then see how or if they can be optimally arranged to allow the most components to be included and to allow the most opportunity for success in
achieving or improving each component for the most individuals. The desired components should appeal to all unabberated individuals, not just a select group or strata.
LISTING ITEMS
This list is just intended as a starting point. It can be added to and modified with the idea of moving closer to the optimum. It might help to list the points down on separate pieces of paper and lay them on a table top so that they can be moved around in an effort to align with each other. The idea is to end up with a coherent set of items that can be used as a guide in
determining the pro-life direction.
Competency
In working, communicating, staying out of traps, correcting self and others, aligning and evaluating data. A commitment to Continuous Improvement of Competency.
Harmony
As advances are made in the pro-life direction it should become easier to get along with others. But this should not preclude:
Freedom to Dislike or Hate Others
A person's individuality is expressed not only through their likes, but also through their dislikes or even hatred. A common turn-off to the idea of increased harmony is the intimation that an individual would be required to like everyone else. Like, dislike and hatred are components of the personal life, but since they are subjective, should remain subordinate to objective realities and considerations and so should never trump the
Right to Work and Participate in Groups
For all honest individuals.
Increased Productivity
Decreased Crime
Decreased War
Increased Personal Health
Increased Sanity
Increased Education and Literacy
Increased Intelligence
A basic activity in moving in the pro-life direction is analagous to playing horseshoe pitching. The individual faces up to all factors in his environment and tries to choose the optimal activity and use of resources that allows the most progress from his current position or situation in the pro-life direction. Just like in horseshoes, he doesn't have to be perfect. In the general direction is good, close is better, ringers can be gotten over time, and so will increased intelligence (from all that analytical exercise of aligning data to give a better result).
Increased Understandings and Ability to Communicate
It should be driven by the individual-- from the "ground up", so that its continued success is not dependent on any particular leader or group of leaders. This makes it more robust and much more difficult to pervert. To this end the activities should be:
Simple and Doable
There should be no great costs involved. The main costs would be analytical "elbow grease". Much of this would be applied during the hours already being spent in work and chores. Some time would also be spent on study, which requires:
A Technology of How to Successfully Study for the Ability to Apply,
which is a very different thing from studying to pass a test or get a grade, and which can be applied by the individual, if he desires, beyond the halls of formal education.
It should be capable of being forwarded from the starting point of any existing culture wherein the individual has at least basic human rights. Revolutions should not be needed, but the individual will become stronger, more capable, and less easily led. Some may object to that.
There should be no central authority. Central organization should be kept to a minimum. This would decreases or eliminates the opportunity for infiltration and perversion. There can, however, be:
Consultants
Consultants should be expected to encourage the individual to think for themselves, rather than supply answers. Possibly the teaching model of Socrates could be used in which he (Socrates) only asked questions of his students, rather than lecturing them.
Correcters or Checkers
Who the individual can reference to. A Corrector or Checker should always appeal to the self-determined understanding of the individual.
Libraries and Depositories of write-ups of successful actions and hats, policy system templates, etc. The Internet is ideal for this.
Opportunity for the individual to acquire enough resources to allow him to work, maintain his health, provide for his family, and communicate as required to engage in the pro-life evolution.
Opportunity for the individual to rise above the level of hand-to-mouth existence and the struggle to fill immediate need so that he can devote at least a minimum amount of time to education and practical philosophy and self-determined application of what he has learned to his accumulated life experience. Part of this would be increased health leading to increased longevity which then allows greater amounts of life experience and time to reflect on it.
A better guide is "pro-life". This should be inclusive of any legitimate religion, and it puts the responsibility on the individual to apply his self-determination in comparing and aligning data with the pro-life direction. In this way not just the few, but the many exercise their analyzers and take some measure of responsibility for seeing that the overall scene does
not head in the wrong direction.
Whether an action or activity is pro-life is determined with reference to the pro-life direction, which is the direction of movement towards the ideal scene. It is the direction of winning the game of life; winning in the game of "chutes and ladders". The goal is recovery of self, allowing opportunity for generating and building on good life experience and getting back to the better states of life that we as spiritual beings have been in at some time in the past.
The ideal scene I am referring to here really enters in above the level of the personal life. The ideal scene should be capable of including at least all honest people, while the personal life is centered around the individual. The ideal scene is a practical philosophical tool that refers to the here and now. It is not meant as a metaphysical or religious or spiritual intangible. It is meant to be a workable, achievable template that individuals and groups can use to reconcile their
activities beyond their private life against.
How is the ideal scene determined? The ideal scene could be stated in general terms as steady progress and movement in the direction of improved conditions. One way to get more specific is just to list out all the desired components, then see how or if they can be optimally arranged to allow the most components to be included and to allow the most opportunity for success in
achieving or improving each component for the most individuals. The desired components should appeal to all unabberated individuals, not just a select group or strata.
LISTING ITEMS
This list is just intended as a starting point. It can be added to and modified with the idea of moving closer to the optimum. It might help to list the points down on separate pieces of paper and lay them on a table top so that they can be moved around in an effort to align with each other. The idea is to end up with a coherent set of items that can be used as a guide in
determining the pro-life direction.
Competency
In working, communicating, staying out of traps, correcting self and others, aligning and evaluating data. A commitment to Continuous Improvement of Competency.
Harmony
As advances are made in the pro-life direction it should become easier to get along with others. But this should not preclude:
Freedom to Dislike or Hate Others
A person's individuality is expressed not only through their likes, but also through their dislikes or even hatred. A common turn-off to the idea of increased harmony is the intimation that an individual would be required to like everyone else. Like, dislike and hatred are components of the personal life, but since they are subjective, should remain subordinate to objective realities and considerations and so should never trump the
Right to Work and Participate in Groups
For all honest individuals.
Increased Productivity
Decreased Crime
Decreased War
Increased Personal Health
Increased Sanity
Increased Education and Literacy
Increased Intelligence
A basic activity in moving in the pro-life direction is analagous to playing horseshoe pitching. The individual faces up to all factors in his environment and tries to choose the optimal activity and use of resources that allows the most progress from his current position or situation in the pro-life direction. Just like in horseshoes, he doesn't have to be perfect. In the general direction is good, close is better, ringers can be gotten over time, and so will increased intelligence (from all that analytical exercise of aligning data to give a better result).
Increased Understandings and Ability to Communicate
It should be driven by the individual-- from the "ground up", so that its continued success is not dependent on any particular leader or group of leaders. This makes it more robust and much more difficult to pervert. To this end the activities should be:
Simple and Doable
There should be no great costs involved. The main costs would be analytical "elbow grease". Much of this would be applied during the hours already being spent in work and chores. Some time would also be spent on study, which requires:
A Technology of How to Successfully Study for the Ability to Apply,
which is a very different thing from studying to pass a test or get a grade, and which can be applied by the individual, if he desires, beyond the halls of formal education.
It should be capable of being forwarded from the starting point of any existing culture wherein the individual has at least basic human rights. Revolutions should not be needed, but the individual will become stronger, more capable, and less easily led. Some may object to that.
There should be no central authority. Central organization should be kept to a minimum. This would decreases or eliminates the opportunity for infiltration and perversion. There can, however, be:
Consultants
Consultants should be expected to encourage the individual to think for themselves, rather than supply answers. Possibly the teaching model of Socrates could be used in which he (Socrates) only asked questions of his students, rather than lecturing them.
Correcters or Checkers
Who the individual can reference to. A Corrector or Checker should always appeal to the self-determined understanding of the individual.
Libraries and Depositories of write-ups of successful actions and hats, policy system templates, etc. The Internet is ideal for this.
Opportunity for the individual to acquire enough resources to allow him to work, maintain his health, provide for his family, and communicate as required to engage in the pro-life evolution.
Opportunity for the individual to rise above the level of hand-to-mouth existence and the struggle to fill immediate need so that he can devote at least a minimum amount of time to education and practical philosophy and self-determined application of what he has learned to his accumulated life experience. Part of this would be increased health leading to increased longevity which then allows greater amounts of life experience and time to reflect on it.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Group Dynamics Chart
A chart depicting the progression from the personal life into the impersonal (professional) life and beyond. It shows what I call the "Who Band" vs. the "What Band".
Click on the image for a better view.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Road to Freedom
The Road to Freedom must be traveled on a self-determined basis. It is not an easy Road, but it is wholesome and practical. Following another or others cannot be substituted for self-determined understanding and action. The Road leads up out of the Who band of the personal life into the What band of group activity. The What band includes what goal, what purpose, what policy, what technology, what awareness, what product, what sub-products, what exchange of products, what exchange of sub-products, what condition of communication with the environment, or exchange with the environment of the group, what flow, what line or route, what statistic, what function, what position, what "hat", what sequence of actions, etc.
The road out of the Who band is a road that leads toward higher levels of data coherency, with fewer and fewer arbitrary data, actions or activities. Part of this coherency is alignment with existing bodies of empirically successful coherent data (object oriented programming, design of life forms, etc.).
Each man travels the road when he determines his own goals, finds a path or purpose line to arrive there, then creates a system of policies, or finds an existing group that follows this purpose line. He then applies himself within the framework of policy of the group with the knowledge and awareness that a well-organized group is the most optimum use of resources to make progress along his chosen purpose line. Applying the mind towards optimization of resources is a good exercise to strengthen analytical abilities.
Social groups are aggregations of personalities. They are not causative enough to achieve any but short-range goals and purposes. They lie within the Who band.
Any fixation on Who-ness or establishment of Who arbitrariness is a tie that prevents continued progress away from the Dark Ages of feudalism. A "civilization" with too many ties back to the Dark Ages in the form of Who fixations puts itself in jeopardy of being pulled back and permanently subordinated to Who arbitraries.
For a civilization to remain healthy it must make constant progress away from the edge of the steep slope which falls away into the eternal Dark Ages. The more progress made away from this edge, the more secure is the Road to Freedom now and in the future for those who would recover their competency in improving conditions and increase their self-respect and value to others. Any system that upholds Who-ness as senior to self-determined thought and action in the What band of group activity is a tie back to the Dark Ages which must be broken for civilization to progress towards greater stability and security.
Anyone who has agreed to being subordinated to a Who or system of Who-ness is on the Road to Slavery or is already a slave. For a person to stay free he must "earn" good experience through progress towards self-determined goals. The better the goal, and the more progress made, the higher the "pay" or return in terms of good experience. In today's world mainstream media is constantly pushing the "Who" of politics, Hollywood, music and sport. Personal and social networking is all who-based. It is up to the individual to keep a focus on the what-ness of his self-determined goals and purposes as senior to all this who-ness mess.
Good experience stabilizes the individual. He develops a better ability to face up to that area of life, and has more confidence and certainty based in demonstrated competence. Part of the "pay" also is greater ease in meshing with others to operate as a team rather than an aggregation of personalities.
Please progress along the road to higher competency and help distance yourself and others from the rim of the canyon of eternal Dark Ages.
The road out of the Who band is a road that leads toward higher levels of data coherency, with fewer and fewer arbitrary data, actions or activities. Part of this coherency is alignment with existing bodies of empirically successful coherent data (object oriented programming, design of life forms, etc.).
Each man travels the road when he determines his own goals, finds a path or purpose line to arrive there, then creates a system of policies, or finds an existing group that follows this purpose line. He then applies himself within the framework of policy of the group with the knowledge and awareness that a well-organized group is the most optimum use of resources to make progress along his chosen purpose line. Applying the mind towards optimization of resources is a good exercise to strengthen analytical abilities.
Social groups are aggregations of personalities. They are not causative enough to achieve any but short-range goals and purposes. They lie within the Who band.
Any fixation on Who-ness or establishment of Who arbitrariness is a tie that prevents continued progress away from the Dark Ages of feudalism. A "civilization" with too many ties back to the Dark Ages in the form of Who fixations puts itself in jeopardy of being pulled back and permanently subordinated to Who arbitraries.
For a civilization to remain healthy it must make constant progress away from the edge of the steep slope which falls away into the eternal Dark Ages. The more progress made away from this edge, the more secure is the Road to Freedom now and in the future for those who would recover their competency in improving conditions and increase their self-respect and value to others. Any system that upholds Who-ness as senior to self-determined thought and action in the What band of group activity is a tie back to the Dark Ages which must be broken for civilization to progress towards greater stability and security.
Anyone who has agreed to being subordinated to a Who or system of Who-ness is on the Road to Slavery or is already a slave. For a person to stay free he must "earn" good experience through progress towards self-determined goals. The better the goal, and the more progress made, the higher the "pay" or return in terms of good experience. In today's world mainstream media is constantly pushing the "Who" of politics, Hollywood, music and sport. Personal and social networking is all who-based. It is up to the individual to keep a focus on the what-ness of his self-determined goals and purposes as senior to all this who-ness mess.
Good experience stabilizes the individual. He develops a better ability to face up to that area of life, and has more confidence and certainty based in demonstrated competence. Part of the "pay" also is greater ease in meshing with others to operate as a team rather than an aggregation of personalities.
Please progress along the road to higher competency and help distance yourself and others from the rim of the canyon of eternal Dark Ages.
Monday, December 14, 2009
How to Stay Out of the Mob Mentality
First, think for yourself. Never agree with anything unless you have a self-determined understanding regarding it. If you are being encouraged to join in agreement with others on some matter be sure to first think the matter through independently. Remember that pro-life activity cannot take place without the competent application of self-determination, so you are not only letting yourself down, but also denying others the benefit of the results of your analytical self-determination if you agree to something without thinking it through first. If the group has agreed on an analytical basis then you should be able to communicate fully, freely and analytically with any member regarding it. If you find that some or all of the group are not able to speak or communicate on a logical, understandable self-determined basis on the subject, then that should be a flag that something is not right with that agreement. Never trust anyone that does not want you to think for yourself, or at least get to the point where you can think for yourself.
Use the idea that a group in a mob mentality state, and in the absence of competent, analytical self-determination from its members will knock down, knock out or suppress what is good, and will uplift and promote what is bad. So make a list for yourself of some bad things, and make a list of good things. Is indecency bad? Decency? Criminality? Respect for others? Respect for public property and the property of others? Which list does the group under consideration line up with?
Use a datum or set of data known to be analytical as a "lifeline" and maintain an analytical hold on it while sailing rough waters. It helps here to have built up a set of fully self-evaluated and cross-aligned data that pertain to the area of life.
If you are working within a formal group there should be policy, both general and specific that pertains to whatever you are doing. Assuming that the policy is valid, and helps to forward the group purpose, or at least does not cut across it, then avoid direct agreement with other group members outside of the context of this policy. Make any such agreements with other group members only from within the context of an awareness of the freedom to act and participate together within boundaries or scope set by the applicable policy.
Staying out of the mob mentality in the private life can be more challenging, because there are usually fewer formal analytical guidelines, and possibly a greater range of inputs from and interactions with the environment. It helps to apply what I call the Theory of the Fallible Analyzer:
The basic idea is that ethical, pro-life activity and movement is analytical, while contra-life, unethical activity comes from a mind that is to some degree non-analytical. Part of this theory is that spiritual beings have been around in this universe for a very long time, and that we were once in much, much better condition than we are now. Not just some of us, but all of us. So what happened? Well, we must have made a LOT of mistakes, and each time we made a mistake we THOUGHT we were right. So, for those of us who are motivated to improve ourselves, it should be obvious that our analyzers are fallible, and that it is not good enough only to THINK or CONSIDER that we are right.Depending on the analyzer alone will not get us back to where we were. The analytical mind is a tool that should be used, but with caution, and always in combination with some sort of cross-checking or corroboration.
Probably the most basic cross-check is just to check the alignment of new data with known good data. This is where it is very handy to have accumulated a coherent data set applicable to the area of life under consideration.
Often a question can be narrowed down to two possible answers. If so, then it may be possible to work out what would be happening in the environment-- what observable conditions would exist-- for each possible answer. Once the two sets of observable conditions have been worked out, then it is just a matter of observing the actual conditions. If the actual conditions have a high correlation with one set of these conditions and not with the other, then you have the answer. If the actual conditions lie somewhere in between then it is time to throw out that test and take a better look at the possible answers.
A good approach to take is to have an awareness of some of the abberative mechanisms of the mind, and how they came about through our experience. A common abberative mechanism is the accumulation of contra-life actions in a certain area which have not been recognized, acknowledged or admitted to by the individual responsible (even if only to himself). The first such contra-life action, if not taken responsibility for, makes it that much easier for a similar action to be perpetrated in that or a similar area. There is a cumulative effect, so that eventually, after a large amount of "dirtiness" has been accumulated in a certain area, there can even be a compulsion to commit more contra-life acts in that area, or similar areas of life. Going along with this build-up of "dirtiness" is an increase in the magnitude or severity of the contra-life acts.
There are options available to the perpetrator during the course of this increasing abberation to make himself less uncomfortable. First and best, at any time he may take responsibility for his actions, seeing himself as the responsible cause and guilty party. If he can face up to this honestly then he will feel some impulse to improve or rectify conditions in the area. A common misconception at this point is that the individual must make personal contact with those he has hurt or harmed in order to make up any damage. This is often not desired or appreciated by the harmed party. A more decent alternative is to make significant contributions to the purpose of increased group causation and civilization. This then allows for the indirect benefit of the harmed party while respecting their privacy. If a road or path of Commitment to Continuous Improvement of Competency could actually be established without barriers at any point, then it would, in a sense, be a way of conquering time, or at least the pressure of unmet obligations, for all honest people that chose to travel it. It is because it would be a given, provided the road remained open, that at some point each individual traveling the road would have contributed enough to the general good to indirectly make up for any past transgressions. Since it could all be done without reference to the private life, but from a non-personal "hat" viewpoint, this road would also provide a way for people to gain more and more control over their private lives.
Another choice is to live with the truth that he is wrong and guilty, but continue with the contra-life activity.This is usually not done over the long run because it is too uncomfortable.
A third choice is to lessen, invalidate, weaken or undermine the subjected area. This is a way he can make himself "less wrong" (and so less uncomfortable) because, after all, the area was "less right". This involves lying to himself regarding the rightness of the area, and probably even perpetrating more contra-life activities against it. To keep these lies in place he may feel the "need" to use measures to see that the area continues to be "less right". Though not uncommon, this is obviously not the right choice.
There is a lot of subjectivity involved with this third choice. A way to guard yourself from falling down this "chute" is to always retain an objective grasp of a situation as senior to a subjective view of it.
You can cross check your analyzer by monitoring whether you have impulses to lessen or denigrate or invalidate a certain individual, type of individual, group, etc. It is not necessarily wrong to do so, but the possibility should be checked. Check it by making sure any objection is fully aligned with objective reality as far as alignment with progress in the pro-life direction.
There actually can be a valid reason for invalidation or speaking derogatorily. When a person acts unethically or criminally it is because he has allowed his self-determination to be overcome by a mental force or compulsion coming from the non-analytical part of his mind. Such compulsions are often derived from or at least exacerbated by his dirtiness in that area of life, or a similar area. This does not relieve him of responsibility. A person is responsible for both parts of his mind-- both analytical and non-analytical. Both are functions of his abundant experience in this universe. An individual can use ethics and reason to apply analytical thought in opposition to this compulsion and overcome it.
When the individual fails in the application of ethics and reason to his unethical or criminal situation then it falls to his environment to supply a counter-force or influence if he is not to succumb to it. Properly applied, this activity is called justice. The aim of justice is not to overwhelm the individual. Since all progress in the pro-life direction comes from the competent application of self-determination by the individual, it makes sense to preserve this self-determination. It is to the benefit of the environment, not just the individual, to preserve it. It can be done by the application by the environment of successive steps from a known progression of increasing severity of "force" counter to the unethical compulsions. Speaking derogatorily can be one of the steps on this progression. At some point in this progression it will become more painful for the individual to continue with the unethical activity than to cease it. Once the individual has stopped the unethical or criminal activity then there is no reason for further application of justice steps. At this point steps should be taken by the individual with or without help from others to eliminate or at least decrease the unethical compulsion. Usually this involves taking responsibility for any dirtiness in the area, cleaning up misunderstandings, getting into communication with it, or at least with the general rules or laws regarding it. The idea is to make sure it won't happen again, or at least that he will not be overcome by the compulsion again.
If an individual finds himself denigrating or speaking derogatorily or applying pejorative labels to a person or group it would behoove him to run a cross-check against the objective realities of the situation. If the objective realities do not show an existing unethical or criminal situation then it may be that the individual is actually trying to remediate his feelings of discomfort or guilt due to dirtiness he is responsible for in the area he has targeted. In this situation the individual has taken a wrong turn down into the non-analytical zone. He should be careful to stay out of agreements with others on realities based in this zone.
In conclusion, think for yourself. Never agree with anything you do not have an understanding of and which lines up in the pro-life direction. Your competent self-determination is your tool to effect improvements for yourself and others. Use it and grow it through successful application.
Use the idea that a group in a mob mentality state, and in the absence of competent, analytical self-determination from its members will knock down, knock out or suppress what is good, and will uplift and promote what is bad. So make a list for yourself of some bad things, and make a list of good things. Is indecency bad? Decency? Criminality? Respect for others? Respect for public property and the property of others? Which list does the group under consideration line up with?
Use a datum or set of data known to be analytical as a "lifeline" and maintain an analytical hold on it while sailing rough waters. It helps here to have built up a set of fully self-evaluated and cross-aligned data that pertain to the area of life.
If you are working within a formal group there should be policy, both general and specific that pertains to whatever you are doing. Assuming that the policy is valid, and helps to forward the group purpose, or at least does not cut across it, then avoid direct agreement with other group members outside of the context of this policy. Make any such agreements with other group members only from within the context of an awareness of the freedom to act and participate together within boundaries or scope set by the applicable policy.
Staying out of the mob mentality in the private life can be more challenging, because there are usually fewer formal analytical guidelines, and possibly a greater range of inputs from and interactions with the environment. It helps to apply what I call the Theory of the Fallible Analyzer:
The basic idea is that ethical, pro-life activity and movement is analytical, while contra-life, unethical activity comes from a mind that is to some degree non-analytical. Part of this theory is that spiritual beings have been around in this universe for a very long time, and that we were once in much, much better condition than we are now. Not just some of us, but all of us. So what happened? Well, we must have made a LOT of mistakes, and each time we made a mistake we THOUGHT we were right. So, for those of us who are motivated to improve ourselves, it should be obvious that our analyzers are fallible, and that it is not good enough only to THINK or CONSIDER that we are right.Depending on the analyzer alone will not get us back to where we were. The analytical mind is a tool that should be used, but with caution, and always in combination with some sort of cross-checking or corroboration.
Probably the most basic cross-check is just to check the alignment of new data with known good data. This is where it is very handy to have accumulated a coherent data set applicable to the area of life under consideration.
Often a question can be narrowed down to two possible answers. If so, then it may be possible to work out what would be happening in the environment-- what observable conditions would exist-- for each possible answer. Once the two sets of observable conditions have been worked out, then it is just a matter of observing the actual conditions. If the actual conditions have a high correlation with one set of these conditions and not with the other, then you have the answer. If the actual conditions lie somewhere in between then it is time to throw out that test and take a better look at the possible answers.
A good approach to take is to have an awareness of some of the abberative mechanisms of the mind, and how they came about through our experience. A common abberative mechanism is the accumulation of contra-life actions in a certain area which have not been recognized, acknowledged or admitted to by the individual responsible (even if only to himself). The first such contra-life action, if not taken responsibility for, makes it that much easier for a similar action to be perpetrated in that or a similar area. There is a cumulative effect, so that eventually, after a large amount of "dirtiness" has been accumulated in a certain area, there can even be a compulsion to commit more contra-life acts in that area, or similar areas of life. Going along with this build-up of "dirtiness" is an increase in the magnitude or severity of the contra-life acts.
There are options available to the perpetrator during the course of this increasing abberation to make himself less uncomfortable. First and best, at any time he may take responsibility for his actions, seeing himself as the responsible cause and guilty party. If he can face up to this honestly then he will feel some impulse to improve or rectify conditions in the area. A common misconception at this point is that the individual must make personal contact with those he has hurt or harmed in order to make up any damage. This is often not desired or appreciated by the harmed party. A more decent alternative is to make significant contributions to the purpose of increased group causation and civilization. This then allows for the indirect benefit of the harmed party while respecting their privacy. If a road or path of Commitment to Continuous Improvement of Competency could actually be established without barriers at any point, then it would, in a sense, be a way of conquering time, or at least the pressure of unmet obligations, for all honest people that chose to travel it. It is because it would be a given, provided the road remained open, that at some point each individual traveling the road would have contributed enough to the general good to indirectly make up for any past transgressions. Since it could all be done without reference to the private life, but from a non-personal "hat" viewpoint, this road would also provide a way for people to gain more and more control over their private lives.
Another choice is to live with the truth that he is wrong and guilty, but continue with the contra-life activity.This is usually not done over the long run because it is too uncomfortable.
A third choice is to lessen, invalidate, weaken or undermine the subjected area. This is a way he can make himself "less wrong" (and so less uncomfortable) because, after all, the area was "less right". This involves lying to himself regarding the rightness of the area, and probably even perpetrating more contra-life activities against it. To keep these lies in place he may feel the "need" to use measures to see that the area continues to be "less right". Though not uncommon, this is obviously not the right choice.
There is a lot of subjectivity involved with this third choice. A way to guard yourself from falling down this "chute" is to always retain an objective grasp of a situation as senior to a subjective view of it.
You can cross check your analyzer by monitoring whether you have impulses to lessen or denigrate or invalidate a certain individual, type of individual, group, etc. It is not necessarily wrong to do so, but the possibility should be checked. Check it by making sure any objection is fully aligned with objective reality as far as alignment with progress in the pro-life direction.
There actually can be a valid reason for invalidation or speaking derogatorily. When a person acts unethically or criminally it is because he has allowed his self-determination to be overcome by a mental force or compulsion coming from the non-analytical part of his mind. Such compulsions are often derived from or at least exacerbated by his dirtiness in that area of life, or a similar area. This does not relieve him of responsibility. A person is responsible for both parts of his mind-- both analytical and non-analytical. Both are functions of his abundant experience in this universe. An individual can use ethics and reason to apply analytical thought in opposition to this compulsion and overcome it.
When the individual fails in the application of ethics and reason to his unethical or criminal situation then it falls to his environment to supply a counter-force or influence if he is not to succumb to it. Properly applied, this activity is called justice. The aim of justice is not to overwhelm the individual. Since all progress in the pro-life direction comes from the competent application of self-determination by the individual, it makes sense to preserve this self-determination. It is to the benefit of the environment, not just the individual, to preserve it. It can be done by the application by the environment of successive steps from a known progression of increasing severity of "force" counter to the unethical compulsions. Speaking derogatorily can be one of the steps on this progression. At some point in this progression it will become more painful for the individual to continue with the unethical activity than to cease it. Once the individual has stopped the unethical or criminal activity then there is no reason for further application of justice steps. At this point steps should be taken by the individual with or without help from others to eliminate or at least decrease the unethical compulsion. Usually this involves taking responsibility for any dirtiness in the area, cleaning up misunderstandings, getting into communication with it, or at least with the general rules or laws regarding it. The idea is to make sure it won't happen again, or at least that he will not be overcome by the compulsion again.
If an individual finds himself denigrating or speaking derogatorily or applying pejorative labels to a person or group it would behoove him to run a cross-check against the objective realities of the situation. If the objective realities do not show an existing unethical or criminal situation then it may be that the individual is actually trying to remediate his feelings of discomfort or guilt due to dirtiness he is responsible for in the area he has targeted. In this situation the individual has taken a wrong turn down into the non-analytical zone. He should be careful to stay out of agreements with others on realities based in this zone.
In conclusion, think for yourself. Never agree with anything you do not have an understanding of and which lines up in the pro-life direction. Your competent self-determination is your tool to effect improvements for yourself and others. Use it and grow it through successful application.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)