So, to quote the unfortunately-lost-his-way-if-he-was-ever-on-a-path-besides-towards-the-nearest-orgasm Ted Nugent, I went on a Journey to the Center of my Mind today. But not really.
Actually it was to my center that's more central to my mind. Taking cues from good insightful friends of mine, I asked my body what it wanted. I kept rolling stuff past it until sitting near the beach was it. That was a hearty yes, yes, yes.
So I drove to Venice and walked to the beach, walking by my favorite Sherbet joint and massage place, straight to where the sands meet the waters, and I sat and closed my eyes. And the washing of the sound of the waves over me, and the sand in the light air with the spray of salt water, and the sun...it was just heaven. Just turning off and tuning into that.
And then spoke with another friend of mine who called. And she talked of doing 40 days and 40 nights of meditation - once in the morning and once in the evening. And that seemed a great thing to do for me. So I'll check that out, and post it here.
Today's results, as perhaps day zero?
I'm leaving LA. Not that it was that much in doubt. But without using the "should" word...it would be great for me.
My continuing goals: really tuning into my passion, and what makes me passionate about actions and paths. To find a path that pulls me along, that consumes me in a cleansing and rejuvenating sorta fire.
Writing is great. Does writing do that? Great if and when I can do it like that.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
The art of the false equivalence: Joe Scarborough 1
One of the trickiest ways to attempt to control or manipulate others, is the inexact metaphor which leaves out a key detail.
Today's illustration by example: Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Context: increasing public realization that (1) many right-wing extremists are, as a Department of Homeland Security report warned, ready to lose their minds and start shooting, (2) the public is realizing that right-wing extremists may be agitated to horrible action, by the amount of factless yelling and ginning-up of fear and hate that's occurring in US right-wing media.
One would think its clear that they certainly can't be soothed by it.
Joe Scarborough complains about the amount of hate-mail he gets, and then says "They use Krugman as their shield for their left-wing hate"...
The metaphor being constructed here:
left-wing extremism is to liberal pundits, as right-wing extremism is to conservative pundits. So if conservatives pundits are at all responsible for right-wing extremism, then liberal pundits are just as responsible for left-wing extremism.
Which is fine on paper. But when compared with reality, this metaphor leaves out two key facts:
1) Left-wing extremists aren't going out and murdering people. * (see comment 1) **(see comment 2)
2) Krugman's style is to calmly state why thinks something will or won't work, and so should or should not be done. He doesn't label those who disagree with him as anti-American, as fascists, socialists, communists or any other ists. He doesn't call for people to rise up in rebellion, and he doesn't get faux-tearful and loudly fear-mongering against some opposing views socialism, fascism, or any kind of -ism.
In other words, he's not arguing in a way that is more likely to drive the already barely-hinged off the edge.
Contrast this with any prominent voices on the Right, and the difference is stark and clear. Bill O'Reilly doesn't care about facts - he will be factually wrong multiple times and nary a correction. And ditto times ten for Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the **surreally** hate-filled Malkin.
In terms of sheer brazen fear-mongering, hate-ginning, fact-averse logic-impaired braying they literally have no left-wing equivalents. There are no left-wing voices which can match them either for audience or screeching insanity.
So, to sum up: yes, two opposing sides of any argument can be equal in theory. But in life, one side will almost always tend to be more in step with observed reality than another.
Find that side, by looking at the facts. Then once you've seen the pattern, you can be quicker to sidestep this kind of attack in the future.
Today's illustration by example: Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Context: increasing public realization that (1) many right-wing extremists are, as a Department of Homeland Security report warned, ready to lose their minds and start shooting, (2) the public is realizing that right-wing extremists may be agitated to horrible action, by the amount of factless yelling and ginning-up of fear and hate that's occurring in US right-wing media.
One would think its clear that they certainly can't be soothed by it.
Joe Scarborough complains about the amount of hate-mail he gets, and then says "They use Krugman as their shield for their left-wing hate"...
The metaphor being constructed here:
left-wing extremism is to liberal pundits, as right-wing extremism is to conservative pundits. So if conservatives pundits are at all responsible for right-wing extremism, then liberal pundits are just as responsible for left-wing extremism.
Which is fine on paper. But when compared with reality, this metaphor leaves out two key facts:
1) Left-wing extremists aren't going out and murdering people. * (see comment 1) **(see comment 2)
2) Krugman's style is to calmly state why thinks something will or won't work, and so should or should not be done. He doesn't label those who disagree with him as anti-American, as fascists, socialists, communists or any other ists. He doesn't call for people to rise up in rebellion, and he doesn't get faux-tearful and loudly fear-mongering against some opposing views socialism, fascism, or any kind of -ism.
In other words, he's not arguing in a way that is more likely to drive the already barely-hinged off the edge.
Contrast this with any prominent voices on the Right, and the difference is stark and clear. Bill O'Reilly doesn't care about facts - he will be factually wrong multiple times and nary a correction. And ditto times ten for Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the **surreally** hate-filled Malkin.
In terms of sheer brazen fear-mongering, hate-ginning, fact-averse logic-impaired braying they literally have no left-wing equivalents. There are no left-wing voices which can match them either for audience or screeching insanity.
So, to sum up: yes, two opposing sides of any argument can be equal in theory. But in life, one side will almost always tend to be more in step with observed reality than another.
Find that side, by looking at the facts. Then once you've seen the pattern, you can be quicker to sidestep this kind of attack in the future.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The smell of bad information
With a trained nose, you can tell a lot of bad information from how its composed. Even if you're not an expert in the field.
These are by no means the only bad smells. But they are some of the worst, and the clearest to detect once you know what to sniff for.
Checklist:
- is accompanied by yelling
- requires immediate action NOW!!!!1!
- is unclear or short in specifics - especially relevant dates, numbers, people or sources of money
- promises to solve everything
- promises to solve everything, but does not *guarantee* refund (special red flag)
- will not be repeated in writing or in front of a 3rd-party witness
- makes you feel terrible if you believe it
- makes you feel fantastic if you believe it
- comes from someone who has something to gain from you
Consider each of these a bad smell in the room. One means something under the coffee table should be thrown out, or it could give you food poisoning. Two means there's a dead cat in the room, so don't sleep on the couch. Three means there might be a body - perhaps of the previous sucker.
In other words, more than one of the above smells means it's very likely that the source of this information is trying to fool you.
This may be a bit beyond the scope of Mind Fu, as it extends to your personal choices. But I would also suggest that, just like you might stay away from a "friend" who likes to hit you in the face, so you might want to reevaluate your relationship with someone who is constantly bringing more than one of these smells into your information environment.
Some people are excitable, and no one is perfect. Sometimes people are just idealistic, ADD, haven't thought things through, etc. But if someone is constantly presenting information to you with more than 3 of these indicators of bad information, they may be trying to fool you. That isn't necessarily someone you want to have in your life. If they're doing that, not only are they not healthy for you, they aren't healthy period. And they will affect your life badly until they heal.
And even if they are your friends, family, or lovers, it is not your responsibility or even **capability** to heal them. You can balance them and support them while they heal themselves - that is the most it is possible for you to do in this universe. And your degree of commitment to helping them throughout that process, is **your** choice as well.
That doesn't mean just abandoning friends and family if things become difficult. It does mean: know what someone is doing, and evaluate your relationship with them in terms of what they **do**, and how it lines up with what they say.
And no matter who the source is - expert, novice, family, friend or lover - even if you don't detect any of the above smells specifically, you should always consider any important action from all angles. There's always time to do this.
These are by no means the only bad smells. But they are some of the worst, and the clearest to detect once you know what to sniff for.
Checklist:
- is accompanied by yelling
- requires immediate action NOW!!!!1!
- is unclear or short in specifics - especially relevant dates, numbers, people or sources of money
- promises to solve everything
- promises to solve everything, but does not *guarantee* refund (special red flag)
- will not be repeated in writing or in front of a 3rd-party witness
- makes you feel terrible if you believe it
- makes you feel fantastic if you believe it
- comes from someone who has something to gain from you
Consider each of these a bad smell in the room. One means something under the coffee table should be thrown out, or it could give you food poisoning. Two means there's a dead cat in the room, so don't sleep on the couch. Three means there might be a body - perhaps of the previous sucker.
In other words, more than one of the above smells means it's very likely that the source of this information is trying to fool you.
This may be a bit beyond the scope of Mind Fu, as it extends to your personal choices. But I would also suggest that, just like you might stay away from a "friend" who likes to hit you in the face, so you might want to reevaluate your relationship with someone who is constantly bringing more than one of these smells into your information environment.
Some people are excitable, and no one is perfect. Sometimes people are just idealistic, ADD, haven't thought things through, etc. But if someone is constantly presenting information to you with more than 3 of these indicators of bad information, they may be trying to fool you. That isn't necessarily someone you want to have in your life. If they're doing that, not only are they not healthy for you, they aren't healthy period. And they will affect your life badly until they heal.
And even if they are your friends, family, or lovers, it is not your responsibility or even **capability** to heal them. You can balance them and support them while they heal themselves - that is the most it is possible for you to do in this universe. And your degree of commitment to helping them throughout that process, is **your** choice as well.
That doesn't mean just abandoning friends and family if things become difficult. It does mean: know what someone is doing, and evaluate your relationship with them in terms of what they **do**, and how it lines up with what they say.
And no matter who the source is - expert, novice, family, friend or lover - even if you don't detect any of the above smells specifically, you should always consider any important action from all angles. There's always time to do this.
On knowing wtf is going on
No one can be an expert in all things. Often it is nearly impossible to be an expert in one thing. And even experts in one thing don't all there is to know about their field. There is always more to know.
In addition, in our civilization with its constantly expanding information, there are other specialized fields which can relate to each other in ways even experts won't have the foggiest notion of.
An example of this is from DNA research and linguistics. Two entirely different fields. Yet methods developed in tracking the changes in language over time, have proven very useful in determining and tracking the changes in DNA over time. This has led to further advances in the knowledge of history. By tracking a specific species of human parasite, body lice, we have been able to determine when they split off from the common louse. Body lice require clothing in order to survive. Therefore, we know the point at which humanity started wearing clothing - about 100,000 years ago.
Would any of the individual experts have had any idea of this, until they started pooling everything? No.
So, experts don't know everything.
On the other hand, experts in any given fields know far more than you or I.
A lot of people carry the consultations of experts to unhealthy extremes. Some people place absolute and total faith in experts, while others place no trust in experts whatsoever if they conflict with their "gut instincts".
But gut feelings only work in fields where the gut-feeler is an expert. Think about it. If we didn't know the world was round, our gut instincts would tell us it was flat. And also that the sun revolves around the Earth.
So what is an individual to do, with so much information and not enough time in life - let alone interest - to become familiar with every single field?
On anything of importance, ALWAYS consult with MULTIPLE experts. And especially if someone who claims to be an expert is attempting to influence you towards a specific action.
Do this even if - **especially** if - this action hinges on knowledge that you consider yourself an expert of.
In the end, we can only guess that even God knows everything. We certainly don't. So we must make the best call we can with the information we have, and then move on. No matter what counsel we receive, and whichever choice you make, the responsibility for that choice is *yours*.
Other animals don't beat themselves up for past choices. They don't feel sorry for themselves. It would be great for us human animals to use our brains to remember: we don't have to either.
In addition, in our civilization with its constantly expanding information, there are other specialized fields which can relate to each other in ways even experts won't have the foggiest notion of.
An example of this is from DNA research and linguistics. Two entirely different fields. Yet methods developed in tracking the changes in language over time, have proven very useful in determining and tracking the changes in DNA over time. This has led to further advances in the knowledge of history. By tracking a specific species of human parasite, body lice, we have been able to determine when they split off from the common louse. Body lice require clothing in order to survive. Therefore, we know the point at which humanity started wearing clothing - about 100,000 years ago.
Would any of the individual experts have had any idea of this, until they started pooling everything? No.
So, experts don't know everything.
On the other hand, experts in any given fields know far more than you or I.
A lot of people carry the consultations of experts to unhealthy extremes. Some people place absolute and total faith in experts, while others place no trust in experts whatsoever if they conflict with their "gut instincts".
But gut feelings only work in fields where the gut-feeler is an expert. Think about it. If we didn't know the world was round, our gut instincts would tell us it was flat. And also that the sun revolves around the Earth.
So what is an individual to do, with so much information and not enough time in life - let alone interest - to become familiar with every single field?
On anything of importance, ALWAYS consult with MULTIPLE experts. And especially if someone who claims to be an expert is attempting to influence you towards a specific action.
Do this even if - **especially** if - this action hinges on knowledge that you consider yourself an expert of.
In the end, we can only guess that even God knows everything. We certainly don't. So we must make the best call we can with the information we have, and then move on. No matter what counsel we receive, and whichever choice you make, the responsibility for that choice is *yours*.
Other animals don't beat themselves up for past choices. They don't feel sorry for themselves. It would be great for us human animals to use our brains to remember: we don't have to either.
On training the inner child to kick ass
Your inner core self needs love and patience from you, to go with you into the world at your side.
Would you raise a garden well, by withholding sunshine and water from it to "make it tougher"?
You inner child is a part of you that is at your core. Its not able to give love and patience to itself. To a certain extent, it probably does not believe that it deserves it. This is not an intellectual belief founded on any sort of evidence; it is an emotional belief that is the only way it can explain a world that isn't fair. When you're young, your parents are your world. If your parents are imperfect, it can't be their fault. The young mind isn't ready to contain that kind of information. So the emotional decision is made that what's wrong with the world, must really be the fault of the child.
Give yourself at your deepest levels, this love and patience. This sunshine and water that might not otherwise reach these depths.
This practice will give you the core to be healthy in all ways. And yes, the ability to think for yourself. Thinking for yourself is a brave act, that is in many ways based on faith in yourself.
Would you raise a garden well, by withholding sunshine and water from it to "make it tougher"?
You inner child is a part of you that is at your core. Its not able to give love and patience to itself. To a certain extent, it probably does not believe that it deserves it. This is not an intellectual belief founded on any sort of evidence; it is an emotional belief that is the only way it can explain a world that isn't fair. When you're young, your parents are your world. If your parents are imperfect, it can't be their fault. The young mind isn't ready to contain that kind of information. So the emotional decision is made that what's wrong with the world, must really be the fault of the child.
Give yourself at your deepest levels, this love and patience. This sunshine and water that might not otherwise reach these depths.
This practice will give you the core to be healthy in all ways. And yes, the ability to think for yourself. Thinking for yourself is a brave act, that is in many ways based on faith in yourself.
Does magic exist?
Well, does it matter?
If magic is not objectively possible, as nearly all scientists and similar empiricists believe - then it's still subjectively occurring in our perceptions. And perception is something that definitely exists, and is a tool to be wielded. Whether what's perceived exists outside of the mind or not? That can be irrelevant in many cases.
I have felt Reiki as a non-physical force, manifesting as sensation even though there was no tangible physical contact. Is this illusion on the part of my mind? Perhaps. But it can feel incredible - in all senses of the word "incredible". So it's real enough to have an effect on me.
That bully in your office may not actually be taking some kind of quantifiable life force from you like a vampire. But it can feel like that bully is, and this feeling can be accurate - because thought and consciousness occurs in symbols which are wired into the primate brain. Where the primate's brain feels the bully's actions as an attempt to lower him in the status of the tribe - our conceptual brain processes it as a metaphor, so it can be included in our conceptual thought.
That lovely member of the opposite sex who surprised you with a smile may not have actually sent you a thousand megawatts of joy. But the effect is just as same as if that person did - and one such smile a day would have actual long-term physical effects. You would not only smile more yourself, you would have less stress and probably start eating better.
What matters most is what works. The reasons how something may actually work are definitely of interest, but come a distant second.
And it does appear that magic, whatever it is, works to the extent and degree that you *make* it work - that you invest in it with your belief system.
By this definition any number of things we think of as non-magical really are largely magical - for example, a modern monetary system. Fame. Even a country.
So it does not matter whether or not magic "really" exists - if people believe in it, people make it real with their actions.
Knowing this power of perception, and the pragmatic ways to deal with it, are important parts of Mind Fu.
If magic is not objectively possible, as nearly all scientists and similar empiricists believe - then it's still subjectively occurring in our perceptions. And perception is something that definitely exists, and is a tool to be wielded. Whether what's perceived exists outside of the mind or not? That can be irrelevant in many cases.
I have felt Reiki as a non-physical force, manifesting as sensation even though there was no tangible physical contact. Is this illusion on the part of my mind? Perhaps. But it can feel incredible - in all senses of the word "incredible". So it's real enough to have an effect on me.
That bully in your office may not actually be taking some kind of quantifiable life force from you like a vampire. But it can feel like that bully is, and this feeling can be accurate - because thought and consciousness occurs in symbols which are wired into the primate brain. Where the primate's brain feels the bully's actions as an attempt to lower him in the status of the tribe - our conceptual brain processes it as a metaphor, so it can be included in our conceptual thought.
That lovely member of the opposite sex who surprised you with a smile may not have actually sent you a thousand megawatts of joy. But the effect is just as same as if that person did - and one such smile a day would have actual long-term physical effects. You would not only smile more yourself, you would have less stress and probably start eating better.
What matters most is what works. The reasons how something may actually work are definitely of interest, but come a distant second.
And it does appear that magic, whatever it is, works to the extent and degree that you *make* it work - that you invest in it with your belief system.
By this definition any number of things we think of as non-magical really are largely magical - for example, a modern monetary system. Fame. Even a country.
So it does not matter whether or not magic "really" exists - if people believe in it, people make it real with their actions.
Knowing this power of perception, and the pragmatic ways to deal with it, are important parts of Mind Fu.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Self-Defense from the Self part 3: disengaging
So you've got an impulse to say something or do something, to either initiate or respond to someone in some way. And you've tracked down the direction this impulse is coming from, and it doesn't seem to be coming from a healthy part of yourself.
Now what?
Well, just realizing this is what's going on, can often be enough to disarm the impulse. And if you can just stop with that realization and move on, then you have won.
You can lose when you get sucked in to wanting to combat the impulse. To try to defeat it by fighting against it; to try to reason against it; to try to force it to shut up or go away. An unhealthy impulse is fed by some form of anger, fear or both. It is a part of you that has become twisted against itself, and turned into a knot. If you meet it with anger or fear, you perpetuate the struggle that creates the knot.
But if you simply choose not to act on it, thank it for sharing, disengage from it and move on with your life, its power is gone. It may surface again, in the next instant. But it has less power; and you have more of your own self freed from the knot.
And this is the essence of Mind Fu: don't fight force with force. Unlike the physical world, you can win a mental struggle by just choosing not to play. Thoughts and ideas only have the force, power and meaning that you give them.
Emotions have force. But emotions also still only have the *meaning* you give them.
Disengaging is a skill to be learned and improved, like any other. It's not a perfection to attain, but an ability to seek improve.
There are many ways to disengage, as well. If it is a particularly painful knot within yourself, I've found a good way is to have genuine compassion for this part of yourself. You are wounded there. This part of you is worthy of all the love you have, and more.
This way of working with yourself is phrased as a strategy for defense. That's the metaphor I'm going with, but there is of course more than that. This is reuniting with yourself, and healing yourself, and knowing yourself, by learning to love yourself.
Now, love is not indulgence. Love does not mean letting this knot within you have its way. Love is: love. Wanting that part of yourself to not be in pain any more.
Sounds annoyingly hippie, doesn't it? As we're taught in modern times to disrespect them. But just because it comes from a hippie, doesn't make it wrong.
Now what?
Well, just realizing this is what's going on, can often be enough to disarm the impulse. And if you can just stop with that realization and move on, then you have won.
You can lose when you get sucked in to wanting to combat the impulse. To try to defeat it by fighting against it; to try to reason against it; to try to force it to shut up or go away. An unhealthy impulse is fed by some form of anger, fear or both. It is a part of you that has become twisted against itself, and turned into a knot. If you meet it with anger or fear, you perpetuate the struggle that creates the knot.
But if you simply choose not to act on it, thank it for sharing, disengage from it and move on with your life, its power is gone. It may surface again, in the next instant. But it has less power; and you have more of your own self freed from the knot.
And this is the essence of Mind Fu: don't fight force with force. Unlike the physical world, you can win a mental struggle by just choosing not to play. Thoughts and ideas only have the force, power and meaning that you give them.
Emotions have force. But emotions also still only have the *meaning* you give them.
Disengaging is a skill to be learned and improved, like any other. It's not a perfection to attain, but an ability to seek improve.
There are many ways to disengage, as well. If it is a particularly painful knot within yourself, I've found a good way is to have genuine compassion for this part of yourself. You are wounded there. This part of you is worthy of all the love you have, and more.
This way of working with yourself is phrased as a strategy for defense. That's the metaphor I'm going with, but there is of course more than that. This is reuniting with yourself, and healing yourself, and knowing yourself, by learning to love yourself.
Now, love is not indulgence. Love does not mean letting this knot within you have its way. Love is: love. Wanting that part of yourself to not be in pain any more.
Sounds annoyingly hippie, doesn't it? As we're taught in modern times to disrespect them. But just because it comes from a hippie, doesn't make it wrong.
Self-Defense from the Self part 2: Defining
Our individual selves are complex networks of ideas, thoughts, habits, patterns, and more. Stewing in a pot of emotion that we may not even realize until after it boils over.
We can't trust every single thing that runs through our minds. So, to continue the previous article, if the thought:
1. puts you down
2. puts someone else down
3. wants to harm anyone in any way
...then that thought and the impulse it comes from is not reliable, and is not to be acted on. It does not come from your center. It comes almost certainly from a part of you that was wounded long ago.
And if you act from this part of you, you will be off center. You will needlessly harm others, and in the process will also harm yourself. Furthermore, and also important: it's a crappy way to live.
Devil's advocates - me included - say, "What if an impulse is right, and you actually need to harm someone else to defend yourself?"
In mental self-defense, such thought is **never** right. Mentally defending yourself **never** requires attacking someone else's self-esteem or social position. Never ever ever.
In physical self-defense, of course, this is not necessarily true. But when someone is physically trying to attack you,you won't have to wonder about it. You will know. And, like any other animal that's physically attacked, your response will be fight or flight. Which is how it should be - in a physical fight, if you are thinking you are not responding in the moment, your opponent will be much faster and you are much more likely to lose.
Now, if any of us humans are ever in any kind of a situation that is **not** directly physically threatening and thoughts occur which suggest physical harm - we should get out of there and then seek help. Something's up with the hardware, the software, or both - and its our responsibility to tend to it. Its important to recognize in this case, it's not the hearing of the thoughts that's the problem - it's doing what they tell you.
Grim and unsettling things to think about - but I want this Mind Fu to be a comprehensive system. I can't just skip the tough parts...
We can't trust every single thing that runs through our minds. So, to continue the previous article, if the thought:
1. puts you down
2. puts someone else down
3. wants to harm anyone in any way
...then that thought and the impulse it comes from is not reliable, and is not to be acted on. It does not come from your center. It comes almost certainly from a part of you that was wounded long ago.
And if you act from this part of you, you will be off center. You will needlessly harm others, and in the process will also harm yourself. Furthermore, and also important: it's a crappy way to live.
Devil's advocates - me included - say, "What if an impulse is right, and you actually need to harm someone else to defend yourself?"
In mental self-defense, such thought is **never** right. Mentally defending yourself **never** requires attacking someone else's self-esteem or social position. Never ever ever.
In physical self-defense, of course, this is not necessarily true. But when someone is physically trying to attack you,you won't have to wonder about it. You will know. And, like any other animal that's physically attacked, your response will be fight or flight. Which is how it should be - in a physical fight, if you are thinking you are not responding in the moment, your opponent will be much faster and you are much more likely to lose.
Now, if any of us humans are ever in any kind of a situation that is **not** directly physically threatening and thoughts occur which suggest physical harm - we should get out of there and then seek help. Something's up with the hardware, the software, or both - and its our responsibility to tend to it. Its important to recognize in this case, it's not the hearing of the thoughts that's the problem - it's doing what they tell you.
Grim and unsettling things to think about - but I want this Mind Fu to be a comprehensive system. I can't just skip the tough parts...
Self Defense from the Self Part 1: Basic Principles
Being good at Mind Fu doesn't only mean defending ourselves from others. It also means doing that for some parts of ourselves.
And just as its important to identify others' possible attempts to manipulate and control us, its just as important to know where our own inner thoughts and impulses may be coming from.
As any broken heart can tell you, just because something that seems like your inner voice is telling you something is good for you, doesn't mean it really is.
Finding the perfect, real inner voice and always being sure you're in contact directly with it and it alone, is hard working that's never certain. I find it far easier, at least for now, to define when it is definitely not that inner voice.
1. If it puts you down
2. If it puts others down
3. If it wants to hurt anyone in any way
...then what you're dealing with shouldn't ever be in the driver's seat. And it's almost always a wounded part of yourself.
Keep this in mind, the next time some part of your mind that comes from your wounded past is yelling insults at you as well. "You suck!" is not supportive, coming from anybody; when it's another part of your mind yelling at you for making a lame joke at a party - you wouldn't want to hear that tone from a stranger. Why accept if from yourself?
Get your individual components in line with your self. Be focused. Don't worry, it will never be complete. It's a journey.
And just as its important to identify others' possible attempts to manipulate and control us, its just as important to know where our own inner thoughts and impulses may be coming from.
As any broken heart can tell you, just because something that seems like your inner voice is telling you something is good for you, doesn't mean it really is.
Finding the perfect, real inner voice and always being sure you're in contact directly with it and it alone, is hard working that's never certain. I find it far easier, at least for now, to define when it is definitely not that inner voice.
1. If it puts you down
2. If it puts others down
3. If it wants to hurt anyone in any way
...then what you're dealing with shouldn't ever be in the driver's seat. And it's almost always a wounded part of yourself.
Keep this in mind, the next time some part of your mind that comes from your wounded past is yelling insults at you as well. "You suck!" is not supportive, coming from anybody; when it's another part of your mind yelling at you for making a lame joke at a party - you wouldn't want to hear that tone from a stranger. Why accept if from yourself?
Get your individual components in line with your self. Be focused. Don't worry, it will never be complete. It's a journey.
Meditation.
Do it.
Just let that chattering mind relax for just a brief amount of time. Don't bloat it with TV until it dozes off; don't give it busy work; just for 20, 15, 10 or even 5 minutes a day:
Let it do nothing. This is very difficult. It can be scary, even. It is so worth it. Like every time you debate about whether or not to go jogging or hit the gym - every time you do, you're glad you did.
I find it useful to give my chattering mind something to focus on. A candle flame works well - gently letting go of every thought that's not that flame. What also works great is a system of affordable Transcendental Meditation. The full-frills version has you paying several grand for your perfect mantra - the $29.95 version has you selecting a single syllable - one size fits all - and handing this straight to your chattering mind.
Others like binaural meditation aids - which play different sound waves in each ear, thus distracting our minds in that way. I haven't tried 'em, but they seem fine. Some people swear by 'em.
Like hand push-ups versus knuckle push-ups, the method is less important than the action. So meditate regularly, and let go of all that crap that you're walking around with. It could be knocking people you want away from you, and could be giving other people a handle to push you around.
Get to know yourself beyond your verbal thoughts. Step back a bit from the monologue you've been working on since you learned to talk.
Don't worry - it'll still be there in 20 minutes for you to step back into. Believe me.
We can forget that our minds don't run us - we run our minds. The real center of ourselves is something that our minds exist to serve, as well as our bodies. Meditation helps you get closer to that truth.
Just let that chattering mind relax for just a brief amount of time. Don't bloat it with TV until it dozes off; don't give it busy work; just for 20, 15, 10 or even 5 minutes a day:
Let it do nothing. This is very difficult. It can be scary, even. It is so worth it. Like every time you debate about whether or not to go jogging or hit the gym - every time you do, you're glad you did.
I find it useful to give my chattering mind something to focus on. A candle flame works well - gently letting go of every thought that's not that flame. What also works great is a system of affordable Transcendental Meditation. The full-frills version has you paying several grand for your perfect mantra - the $29.95 version has you selecting a single syllable - one size fits all - and handing this straight to your chattering mind.
Others like binaural meditation aids - which play different sound waves in each ear, thus distracting our minds in that way. I haven't tried 'em, but they seem fine. Some people swear by 'em.
Like hand push-ups versus knuckle push-ups, the method is less important than the action. So meditate regularly, and let go of all that crap that you're walking around with. It could be knocking people you want away from you, and could be giving other people a handle to push you around.
Get to know yourself beyond your verbal thoughts. Step back a bit from the monologue you've been working on since you learned to talk.
Don't worry - it'll still be there in 20 minutes for you to step back into. Believe me.
We can forget that our minds don't run us - we run our minds. The real center of ourselves is something that our minds exist to serve, as well as our bodies. Meditation helps you get closer to that truth.
Some more initial principles
Mentally, even if someone is smarter or more educated than us, it doesn't matter. All words, thoughts and ideas weigh the same.
As long as we can look at the incoming information without being pulled off-balance, and we can act according to the desires of our own centers, principles and values, we cannot be mentally controlled.
If incoming information - whether it is from a teacher, a date, a politician, an advertiser, a newscaster - is on an important subject, think of it as a possible attempt to manipulate or control you. Even if this source has not tried this before, this time they might.
In that case, the metaphor would be to consider if this incoming information is a strike. So the first step, is to see if it is a strike or not.
- If accepted, would it have the effect of diminishing your self-worth?
- Would the same person accept this information if it were coming at them?
- Does it contradict what you know of reality?
- Does it exactly agree with what you know of reality? Have you looked at strongly reasoned opinions that have the opposite view? If so, whose facts are actually correct?
- Or is their statement not intended to manipulate you - its instead intended to make you laugh, or even to give you unpleasant counsel which you need to hear?
- Consider this: If this is a physical attempt to control or manipulate you, it could be attempt to grab your arm or punch your face. So, is there a metaphysical part of you they're attacking? Are they trying to hurt your pride? To inflame your fear? To ensnare you with desire?
Reconstruct the information with different specifics. For example:
If they are presenting an argument for punishment and people they care for were being negatively affected by it, would it have the same logical result in that case?
If they are presenting an argument that they are entitled to a certain degree of power, would they agree that their enemies are equally entitled if their enemies were in the same position?
Now with that awareness, analyze their statement again. Does it make the same sense now? Separately from whether or not they're trying to manipulate or control you - is the direction they are trying to push you in, actually good for you?
The car the salesman is trying to get you into, may actually be a good car. The job your boss is trying to give you, may actually be good work for you. The politician who is trying to get your vote, may actually still do good in office.
In other words, know what's going on, be clear on it, and make a choice.
You can only learn this for yourself. The beauty of it is, work your mind like a muscle and it will help you in this for the rest of your life.
And two more, very important rules of thumb:
1. If someone does seem to be attempting to control or manipulate you, and this is destructive to you, they can only do so you with your consent. Don't fight with them any more than the minimum needed to disengage yourself. Put them outside your boundaries, and don't let them back in until you *see* that they have changed this behavior.
2. You almost never really have to buy or do anything right away. You will almost always have time to step back and think about it, in a space that is without influence from the person who's trying to convince you.
Take that time.
As long as we can look at the incoming information without being pulled off-balance, and we can act according to the desires of our own centers, principles and values, we cannot be mentally controlled.
If incoming information - whether it is from a teacher, a date, a politician, an advertiser, a newscaster - is on an important subject, think of it as a possible attempt to manipulate or control you. Even if this source has not tried this before, this time they might.
In that case, the metaphor would be to consider if this incoming information is a strike. So the first step, is to see if it is a strike or not.
- If accepted, would it have the effect of diminishing your self-worth?
- Would the same person accept this information if it were coming at them?
- Does it contradict what you know of reality?
- Does it exactly agree with what you know of reality? Have you looked at strongly reasoned opinions that have the opposite view? If so, whose facts are actually correct?
- Or is their statement not intended to manipulate you - its instead intended to make you laugh, or even to give you unpleasant counsel which you need to hear?
- Consider this: If this is a physical attempt to control or manipulate you, it could be attempt to grab your arm or punch your face. So, is there a metaphysical part of you they're attacking? Are they trying to hurt your pride? To inflame your fear? To ensnare you with desire?
Reconstruct the information with different specifics. For example:
If they are presenting an argument for punishment and people they care for were being negatively affected by it, would it have the same logical result in that case?
If they are presenting an argument that they are entitled to a certain degree of power, would they agree that their enemies are equally entitled if their enemies were in the same position?
Now with that awareness, analyze their statement again. Does it make the same sense now? Separately from whether or not they're trying to manipulate or control you - is the direction they are trying to push you in, actually good for you?
The car the salesman is trying to get you into, may actually be a good car. The job your boss is trying to give you, may actually be good work for you. The politician who is trying to get your vote, may actually still do good in office.
In other words, know what's going on, be clear on it, and make a choice.
You can only learn this for yourself. The beauty of it is, work your mind like a muscle and it will help you in this for the rest of your life.
And two more, very important rules of thumb:
1. If someone does seem to be attempting to control or manipulate you, and this is destructive to you, they can only do so you with your consent. Don't fight with them any more than the minimum needed to disengage yourself. Put them outside your boundaries, and don't let them back in until you *see* that they have changed this behavior.
2. You almost never really have to buy or do anything right away. You will almost always have time to step back and think about it, in a space that is without influence from the person who's trying to convince you.
Take that time.
Metaphysical dojos
This is a rough overview of various institutions that offer themselves as ways to learn what you need to get along in this world.
What they tend not to offer, is Mind Fu. That is, a system that enables you, the individual, to avoid the manipulations of others and truly think for yourself.
Public Schools.
I consider most American public schools to be absolutely terrible for kids. Especially in terms of teaching kids to actually grow up knowing how to think for themselves and make up their own minds.
Some valid argument has been made that the purpose of schools is actually not to teach kids - it's to tame them for the workforce, and give them just enough skills to be productive. Kind of a dark view, but the period in which public schooling came about - the Industrial Revolution - lends some credence to this. As does the fact that schooling kids also happens to keep them out of the workforce until a certain age.
That said, others from overseas have told me how American schools are much better at teaching individual thought than European ones. And I do think, even with the unfortunate effect of dulling kids' curiosity, the poor still do need schools. They can't depend on their parents to teach them the skills they *will* need in order to find work and prosper.
And another positive of public schools is the other students, and the uncontrolled randomness and chaos that they can introduce to each other's social spheres, minds and thought processes. This can be rough, but it can also be rough in a healthy way. We want our kids to do well in the world - often public school can offer a microscopic example to learn in and teach from.
Private Schools
My small amount of experience with private schools has led me to think that, as they are training the children of the upper classes, they offer better training in mental self-defense than public schools.
The downside is that they can tend to offer a classist ideology with a social Darwinist component, that feeds into the Upper Class ideology that they really are better than the Middle and Lower classes - it's just impolite to say so.
They tend to avoid any sort of discussion, and thus any sort of defense, in this area - which a lot of other assumptions are then built strongly upon.
College
Nearly all colleges, even specifically schools of philosophy, don't offer a curriculum in metaphysical *health* - what can be healthy ways of looking at the world. They offer a range of directions for occupation, or of exploration of knowledge for it's own sake.
This is good exercise, but not necessarily anything to develop as a way of life.
That said, colleges also do have within them some of the best mental defense-systems training possible. Specifically logic. Which, when we as humans can use it, can enable us to resist the attacks of salesmen, politicians, and others - regardless of how much smarter they may be.
It is important that this logic be exercised at the teachers - some of whom, both intentionally and unintentionally, are interested in pulling students off balance into the way they "should" believe.
This can occur with both liberals and conservatives, the religious and the secular, the "independent" Libertarian *and* the agnostic as well.
Churches.
My personal experience with churches, all Christian, is that they offer one single answer: God. This is generally not inviting people to find their own answers, or even know what their own questions re.
This can be **extremely** dangerous, not just for the individual but for society. If people don't exercise their belief systems and minds, and learn their own mental self-defense or even flexibility - then these people are then easily pulled off balance by people who know how to plug into the Church mindset.
This does not mean that church doesn't have other value. It can be a great comfort, I am sure, and offer guidance in other ways. But I would not recommend a church as a way for someone to learn to think for themselves - which is necessary in order for people to know how to mentally defend themselves.
I have found a Hindu temple to be about the same, although less rigorous - perhaps because of having multiple deities. Suffice it to say: logic tends not to be taught in churches. That's not what they're built for.
Churches have a long history of offering pie in the sky to subdue the lower classes in order to maintain the social order. That's just how it is. That doesn't mean churches don't offer anything of value. Quite the contrary - they *have to* offer *something* of value in order for anyone to attend them.
But what they definitely tend not to offer is any sort of self-defense.
Scientology
One of the tragically worst metaphysical dojos I have ever seen. I can't even begin with how unbelievably messed up their hash of layman pyschology, mysticism, con-artistry and sociopathy can be.
Which appears to be a perfect reflection of their founder. Described by a former assistant of his as at times very insightful, at times a con artist, and at times actually frighteningly not-sane.
Some very famous people seem to like Scientology, and consider it beneficial. Good for them; maybe it works for them. Maybe it works for other people as well. For some, it may be a valuable alternative to drug addiction or worse.
But as a way to learn to think for yourself, it fails utterly.
And the things that they've gotten away with as an organization are ***insane***.
I'll leave you with this: Charles Manson attended an early offshot of Scientology.
Don't even grab the brochure as a laugh. Just run.
Landmark Education
I actually found this to be very, very good in terms of metaphysical exercise. Very confrontational, in what it brought me to look at and really see in myself.
And it genuinely offers *no* philosophy, no guru-style leadership, and not any objective right-and-wrong. It's an interesting and effective blend of Buddhism and existentialism. It's main outlook is: there is no meaning in life except what we put in it - *and that's OK*. What that then means is, we have the opportunity to put in a meaning that we will truly enjoy.
Which is all great. Unfortunately it's also saddled with the most aggravatingly built-in sales tactics ever.
This truly is a shame. I think Landmark is well worth experiencing in spite of this - and the sales pitches tend to only start at the end. And I'll also say, that I and every person I know who's been to Landmark is glad that they did.
Other New Age organizations
I haven't heard of any that teach you to think for yourself.
Other self help organizations
Not from my personal experience, but they seem to beneficial when targeted towards specific issues. AA for instance has saved many lives, even if they can be cultish in their approach. I think it's a valid argument that if someone has to choose between drinking themselves to death or submit to a "higher power" as AA dictates - submission is a better solution.
Addiction is a circumstance where the addict is pulled off balance, and is not acting from their own core - but from the part of them that is in thrall to the drug. Any sort of logic, let alone Mind Fu, won't work unless the person's balance is coming from their core.
Actual Martial Arts schools.
I think these are all great for the mind as well as the body. I'd recommend them heartily to everyone. I also think so-called "soft" styles are particularly beneficial for mental self-defense.
They teach the mind, by teaching us how to be in the body and act against others, not by matching their energy but by moving around it in accordance with our *own* goals. To not let others determine what will happen, but to adjust it in terms of what *we* want.
Which is the best thing anyone can ever know.
What they tend not to offer, is Mind Fu. That is, a system that enables you, the individual, to avoid the manipulations of others and truly think for yourself.
Public Schools.
I consider most American public schools to be absolutely terrible for kids. Especially in terms of teaching kids to actually grow up knowing how to think for themselves and make up their own minds.
Some valid argument has been made that the purpose of schools is actually not to teach kids - it's to tame them for the workforce, and give them just enough skills to be productive. Kind of a dark view, but the period in which public schooling came about - the Industrial Revolution - lends some credence to this. As does the fact that schooling kids also happens to keep them out of the workforce until a certain age.
That said, others from overseas have told me how American schools are much better at teaching individual thought than European ones. And I do think, even with the unfortunate effect of dulling kids' curiosity, the poor still do need schools. They can't depend on their parents to teach them the skills they *will* need in order to find work and prosper.
And another positive of public schools is the other students, and the uncontrolled randomness and chaos that they can introduce to each other's social spheres, minds and thought processes. This can be rough, but it can also be rough in a healthy way. We want our kids to do well in the world - often public school can offer a microscopic example to learn in and teach from.
Private Schools
My small amount of experience with private schools has led me to think that, as they are training the children of the upper classes, they offer better training in mental self-defense than public schools.
The downside is that they can tend to offer a classist ideology with a social Darwinist component, that feeds into the Upper Class ideology that they really are better than the Middle and Lower classes - it's just impolite to say so.
They tend to avoid any sort of discussion, and thus any sort of defense, in this area - which a lot of other assumptions are then built strongly upon.
College
Nearly all colleges, even specifically schools of philosophy, don't offer a curriculum in metaphysical *health* - what can be healthy ways of looking at the world. They offer a range of directions for occupation, or of exploration of knowledge for it's own sake.
This is good exercise, but not necessarily anything to develop as a way of life.
That said, colleges also do have within them some of the best mental defense-systems training possible. Specifically logic. Which, when we as humans can use it, can enable us to resist the attacks of salesmen, politicians, and others - regardless of how much smarter they may be.
It is important that this logic be exercised at the teachers - some of whom, both intentionally and unintentionally, are interested in pulling students off balance into the way they "should" believe.
This can occur with both liberals and conservatives, the religious and the secular, the "independent" Libertarian *and* the agnostic as well.
Churches.
My personal experience with churches, all Christian, is that they offer one single answer: God. This is generally not inviting people to find their own answers, or even know what their own questions re.
This can be **extremely** dangerous, not just for the individual but for society. If people don't exercise their belief systems and minds, and learn their own mental self-defense or even flexibility - then these people are then easily pulled off balance by people who know how to plug into the Church mindset.
This does not mean that church doesn't have other value. It can be a great comfort, I am sure, and offer guidance in other ways. But I would not recommend a church as a way for someone to learn to think for themselves - which is necessary in order for people to know how to mentally defend themselves.
I have found a Hindu temple to be about the same, although less rigorous - perhaps because of having multiple deities. Suffice it to say: logic tends not to be taught in churches. That's not what they're built for.
Churches have a long history of offering pie in the sky to subdue the lower classes in order to maintain the social order. That's just how it is. That doesn't mean churches don't offer anything of value. Quite the contrary - they *have to* offer *something* of value in order for anyone to attend them.
But what they definitely tend not to offer is any sort of self-defense.
Scientology
One of the tragically worst metaphysical dojos I have ever seen. I can't even begin with how unbelievably messed up their hash of layman pyschology, mysticism, con-artistry and sociopathy can be.
Which appears to be a perfect reflection of their founder. Described by a former assistant of his as at times very insightful, at times a con artist, and at times actually frighteningly not-sane.
Some very famous people seem to like Scientology, and consider it beneficial. Good for them; maybe it works for them. Maybe it works for other people as well. For some, it may be a valuable alternative to drug addiction or worse.
But as a way to learn to think for yourself, it fails utterly.
And the things that they've gotten away with as an organization are ***insane***.
I'll leave you with this: Charles Manson attended an early offshot of Scientology.
Don't even grab the brochure as a laugh. Just run.
Landmark Education
I actually found this to be very, very good in terms of metaphysical exercise. Very confrontational, in what it brought me to look at and really see in myself.
And it genuinely offers *no* philosophy, no guru-style leadership, and not any objective right-and-wrong. It's an interesting and effective blend of Buddhism and existentialism. It's main outlook is: there is no meaning in life except what we put in it - *and that's OK*. What that then means is, we have the opportunity to put in a meaning that we will truly enjoy.
Which is all great. Unfortunately it's also saddled with the most aggravatingly built-in sales tactics ever.
This truly is a shame. I think Landmark is well worth experiencing in spite of this - and the sales pitches tend to only start at the end. And I'll also say, that I and every person I know who's been to Landmark is glad that they did.
Other New Age organizations
I haven't heard of any that teach you to think for yourself.
Other self help organizations
Not from my personal experience, but they seem to beneficial when targeted towards specific issues. AA for instance has saved many lives, even if they can be cultish in their approach. I think it's a valid argument that if someone has to choose between drinking themselves to death or submit to a "higher power" as AA dictates - submission is a better solution.
Addiction is a circumstance where the addict is pulled off balance, and is not acting from their own core - but from the part of them that is in thrall to the drug. Any sort of logic, let alone Mind Fu, won't work unless the person's balance is coming from their core.
Actual Martial Arts schools.
I think these are all great for the mind as well as the body. I'd recommend them heartily to everyone. I also think so-called "soft" styles are particularly beneficial for mental self-defense.
They teach the mind, by teaching us how to be in the body and act against others, not by matching their energy but by moving around it in accordance with our *own* goals. To not let others determine what will happen, but to adjust it in terms of what *we* want.
Which is the best thing anyone can ever know.
Some initial principles
Mind Fu is very much a parallel of physical Kung Fu.
Wikipedia tells me that "In Chinese, kung fu can be used in contexts completely unrelated to martial arts, and refers colloquially to any individual accomplishment or skill cultivated through long and hard work."
I'm for all three of those definitions for Mind Fu: a martial art (although mental), an individual accomplishment, and a skill cultivated through hard work.
My main background in the physical martial arts is currently Wing Chun, which I have found to be an immensely simple, practical and logical system. A lot of my metaphors will come that style of martial art, specifically.
Balance
Balance is not something you get or have, and then it's done. Balance is a tension between opposites. As such, it is constantly moving and alive, just as you are alive.
So you can't find balance and expect to keep it forever. Or even depend on it for a certain period of time. As circumstances change, you must change or you will be off-balance.
This applies metaphysically, in terms of what you expect from the world, and what you are willing to give the world in return. When the world changes, you must adjust. You bend without breaking, by understanding what matters most.
I'm going to be bold enough to state that these basic principles for humans as we are designed (by either deities or chance) are:
- Love - because we go crazy without it.
- Communication - because we go crazy without it.
- Purpose - because we can't live without it.
- Dreams - because we go crazy without them.
So the first aspect of training in Mind Fu is:
- who or what do you love?
- who do you need to communicate with? And what do you need to say?
- what do you need to do this instant? this day? this week? this month? this year? this ten years? Your life?
- what do you dream about? what do you enjoy, what is your passion?
You can only answer those questions yourself. Knowing the answers is only part of it - because these answers **will change**.
This is a constant work of exercising and adjusting and adapting the core of who you are. It doesn't need to be drudgery. And don't make the mistake of using this as a way to try to change them to what they "should be" - i.e. beating up on yourself, for not being someone different than who you are.
You can change aspects of your behavior - and in many cases it is very healthy to do so. You can do things which you don't necessarily like or want to do - and in many cases this is actually healthy also.
But if you find yourself unhappy and frustrated with anything for any lengthy amount of time, doing these kinds mental/emotional/spiritual exercises is a great way to start.
Wikipedia tells me that "In Chinese, kung fu can be used in contexts completely unrelated to martial arts, and refers colloquially to any individual accomplishment or skill cultivated through long and hard work."
I'm for all three of those definitions for Mind Fu: a martial art (although mental), an individual accomplishment, and a skill cultivated through hard work.
My main background in the physical martial arts is currently Wing Chun, which I have found to be an immensely simple, practical and logical system. A lot of my metaphors will come that style of martial art, specifically.
Balance
Balance is not something you get or have, and then it's done. Balance is a tension between opposites. As such, it is constantly moving and alive, just as you are alive.
So you can't find balance and expect to keep it forever. Or even depend on it for a certain period of time. As circumstances change, you must change or you will be off-balance.
This applies metaphysically, in terms of what you expect from the world, and what you are willing to give the world in return. When the world changes, you must adjust. You bend without breaking, by understanding what matters most.
I'm going to be bold enough to state that these basic principles for humans as we are designed (by either deities or chance) are:
- Love - because we go crazy without it.
- Communication - because we go crazy without it.
- Purpose - because we can't live without it.
- Dreams - because we go crazy without them.
So the first aspect of training in Mind Fu is:
- who or what do you love?
- who do you need to communicate with? And what do you need to say?
- what do you need to do this instant? this day? this week? this month? this year? this ten years? Your life?
- what do you dream about? what do you enjoy, what is your passion?
You can only answer those questions yourself. Knowing the answers is only part of it - because these answers **will change**.
This is a constant work of exercising and adjusting and adapting the core of who you are. It doesn't need to be drudgery. And don't make the mistake of using this as a way to try to change them to what they "should be" - i.e. beating up on yourself, for not being someone different than who you are.
You can change aspects of your behavior - and in many cases it is very healthy to do so. You can do things which you don't necessarily like or want to do - and in many cases this is actually healthy also.
But if you find yourself unhappy and frustrated with anything for any lengthy amount of time, doing these kinds mental/emotional/spiritual exercises is a great way to start.
Information Overload, or Information Overlords?
That's the central question of our current and foreseeable future. Are we accidentally distracted and increasingly ADD as a civilization, or are we being deliberately encouraged by classes above us to pay attention to the bright shiny things, and not the hand that's reaching for our wallet?
Is our mental universe going to be forevermore a duct-taped pastiche of websites, blogs, overheated cable hosts and MySpace/Facebook/Twitter hearsay? Or is this a passing phase of out-of-phase waves, and information will soon reach a blur in which we'll either be mashed beneath white-water rapids, or bourn to a stable place where we can build a new foundation like the frog in the bucket of cream who kept paddling until he churned an island made of butter?
And most importantly, what can we do about any of this?
This blog is my attempt to answer that.
It's also, as a corollary, a place where I'd like to explore an actual art of Mind Fu.
Mind Fu is not just the first two syllables of mindfuck. Or mindfunk, for that matter. (i.e. George Clinton or Praxis.) Mind Fu is my concept for a system of mental self-defense, based on a philosophy of truth as not only moral but necessary as a foundation for self-preservation.
Like all the best self-defense systems, it is designed for those who don't necessarily have the resources of the wealthy. I want it simple, logical, and something that will work well for any human regardless of their formal education or class level.
I'm making it up as a I go along. Like all of us. I know along this path have been many others. No less than Socrates I consider as a formidable sensei. In the semantic field, a giant like Korzybyski. In linguistics and politics, Noam Chomsky. In a unified view of design and life, Buckminster Fuller. In the culture wars, such heroic warriors such as Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Vonnegut, and modern-day red belts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
'Cause whether it's accidental overload, or occidental overlords (or Asian for that matter, what with the rise of China) - the key need for us peasants is the same: to keep our heads, know our direction, and constantly have balance. To not fight energy with energy, but cut straight to the center of whatever is coming at us.
Because while information is always increasing, our brains won't be getting bigger. At least unless we all get booted up into computers during the coming singularity. In which case, I' might need to start another blog.
Is our mental universe going to be forevermore a duct-taped pastiche of websites, blogs, overheated cable hosts and MySpace/Facebook/Twitter hearsay? Or is this a passing phase of out-of-phase waves, and information will soon reach a blur in which we'll either be mashed beneath white-water rapids, or bourn to a stable place where we can build a new foundation like the frog in the bucket of cream who kept paddling until he churned an island made of butter?
And most importantly, what can we do about any of this?
This blog is my attempt to answer that.
It's also, as a corollary, a place where I'd like to explore an actual art of Mind Fu.
Mind Fu is not just the first two syllables of mindfuck. Or mindfunk, for that matter. (i.e. George Clinton or Praxis.) Mind Fu is my concept for a system of mental self-defense, based on a philosophy of truth as not only moral but necessary as a foundation for self-preservation.
Like all the best self-defense systems, it is designed for those who don't necessarily have the resources of the wealthy. I want it simple, logical, and something that will work well for any human regardless of their formal education or class level.
I'm making it up as a I go along. Like all of us. I know along this path have been many others. No less than Socrates I consider as a formidable sensei. In the semantic field, a giant like Korzybyski. In linguistics and politics, Noam Chomsky. In a unified view of design and life, Buckminster Fuller. In the culture wars, such heroic warriors such as Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Vonnegut, and modern-day red belts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
'Cause whether it's accidental overload, or occidental overlords (or Asian for that matter, what with the rise of China) - the key need for us peasants is the same: to keep our heads, know our direction, and constantly have balance. To not fight energy with energy, but cut straight to the center of whatever is coming at us.
Because while information is always increasing, our brains won't be getting bigger. At least unless we all get booted up into computers during the coming singularity. In which case, I' might need to start another blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)